Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 12/13/11 08:22 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

Got any better sources? I'm not exactly going to trust a site who was allegedly a target of said bill, because it exposes the corruption of governments and businesses and they're trying to shut them up for good.

Fixed.

This is definitely a valid concern, and something I would definitely like to ensure doesn't happen. However, the overarching tone of this debate has been that all internet censorship at all is bad. It seems as if these groups are asking for an all or none approach leaning heavily toward the none.

Because it is, at least with this bill. Like I mentioned before the boss of the MPAA wants China style censorship in this country. If the prick wants that then he can move to China.

And check this out:
https://torrentfreak.com/busted-bittorre nt-pirates-at-sony-universal-and-fox-111 213/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=fe ed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Torrentfreak+%28 Torrentfreak%29
Hypocrites.

At 12/13/11 08:22 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

Got any better sources? I'm not exactly going to trust a site who was allegedly a target of said bill, much less one that has made its goal nothing less than an all out assault on the governments of the developed world.

Well, they wouldn't exactly be able to lie about it if 4chan or Encyclopedia Dramatica at the time were blacklisted, or themselves for that matter (without people jumping up and down calling their bullshit), but here.

the Australian government, instead of denying the claim, condemned wiki leaks for publishing their top secret blacklist. This implies both that it was the real deal and that they are more concerned with keeping the list a secret than they are of keeping it constitutional.

they hid the worst cause in the world under the best of intentions (removing child pornography, in their case) but it all proved to be too corrupt to be true. If this bill is amended so that all sites that are blocked have their names available to the public (for transparency) then maybe this bill won't be so dangerous.

nobody likes theft, I don't like it either, but my concern, as well as everyone else who sides with me, is for the law abiding sites that are at risk of collateral damage. see above.

This is definitely a valid concern, and something I would definitely like to ensure doesn't happen. However, the overarching tone of this debate has been that all internet censorship at all is bad. It seems as if these groups are asking for an all or none approach leaning heavily toward the none.

It's not all bad of course, but its not an issue of slippery slope, its an issue of trust. as I mentioned earlier, Transparency for this bill and all the sites that it will block would be key to obtaining the trust needed by the people for this to go through with our consent. And if they pull the same excuse the Australians used by saying that it would make people seek these sites out well then they would be forgetting the key fact that the given site is blocked and inaccessible.

At 12/12/11 09:08 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote:

At 12/10/11 01:10 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 12/10/11 04:16 AM, joe9320 wrote: Yet they speak out against censorship. There should be a balance between the two. Back a while ago, Australia attempted to censor the internet.

The world isn't black and white. It's not an all or nothing place. We can advocate for free speech while still having and enforcing restrictions, such as libel, slander, and theft of ideas and speech.

You're making an odd logical jump. In tangible goods trms you'd be saying that when the government tries to stop shoplifting it's actually trying to discourage the purchasing of goods.

remember, the Australian government down played everyone's fears of the censorship before it happened as well. They said they would only block sites with illegal content, in the same manner supporters of S.O.P.A are.

You know what happened after the two years? The Greens said no, and the censorship plan was scrapped. Confidence in Government restored. Hell, if we had enough petitions to tell RIAA's executives that they are Hitler, well, we can put an end to the whole SOPA bill.

Obey God's will, stop this bill. And God's not going to listen to a bunch of fundamentalist and copyright-thumping bastards!

At 12/13/11 08:37 PM, wildfire4461 wrote: Fixed.

Your bias is showing. Just becuase you hate "the man" doesn't give you the right to steal from others.

At 12/14/11 11:21 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 12/13/11 08:37 PM, wildfire4461 wrote: Fixed.

Your bias is showing. Just becuase you hate "the man" doesn't give you the right to steal from others.

I'm really starting to think you're just a troll and don't actually support everything you say. Or you're just one big Kool Aid drinker who's content with letting big government and business control everything.
You can't see pass the piracy part (somebody pirate your flash submission or something?) and at just how much this will affect the internet for everybody. Remember that other bill that can put a mom in prison for uploading a video of her daughter singing to a song got rolled into this one.

And just look:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/121 1/70404.html
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9 222640/Groups_still_oppose_SOPA_after_pr oposed_amendment
If Google and all of these other tech companies are against the bill then you know it's bad.

It will be voted on tomorrow. If it's knocked down it may never recover. If it passes it may be impossible to stop it.

At 12/14/11 05:38 PM, wildfire4461 wrote: I'm really starting to think you're just a troll and don't actually support everything you say. Or you're just one big Kool Aid drinker who's content with letting big government and business control everything.

This "I don't agree with you so you must drink the 'Kool-Aid"" fad is the dumbest thing since since idiot put "Mc" in front of things becuase htey couldn't afford them. And you want to know why I argue the things I do? Because I HATE liberal group think. Conservative group think is dangerous, but damnit liberal group think is so spoiled, whiney, and trivial.

You can't see pass the piracy part (somebody pirate your flash submission or something?) and at just how much this will affect the internet for everybody. Remember that other bill that can put a mom in prison for uploading a video of her daughter singing to a song got rolled into this one.

You don't understand the piracy part. People want there to be notice. Guess what internet pirates do with notice? Guess what happens when some Freshman is aressted for theft of copyright via filesharing?

And just look:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/121 1/70404.html
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9 222640/Groups_still_oppose_SOPA_after_pr oposed_amendment
If Google and all of these other tech companies are against the bill then you know it's bad.

I read that article. I bet Mr. Google would like my advice on how to program his computer as I respect his advice with regard to the law.

At 12/14/11 07:30 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

You don't understand the piracy part. People want there to be notice. Guess what internet pirates do with notice? Guess what happens when some Freshman is aressted for theft of copyright via filesharing?

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

Well there's a tiny bit of good news:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Hmrf-ByS pU
The bill has been watered down, but it could still cause major censorship problems, especially since there's no definition to what a "rouge" website is. It should make it clear a rouge site is one that engages in actual piracy. Otherwise companies and governments can interpret it however they want.
Like some people have said in the comments, this may have been the plan all along. Have people rage over this horrid bill, then water it down just enough for people to relax and let it pass, when in reality it can still cause major problems.
The only solution is to not let it pass PERIOD.

At 12/14/11 06:30 AM, joe9320 wrote: You know what happened after the two years? The Greens said no, and the censorship plan was scrapped. Confidence in Government restored. Hell, if we had enough petitions to tell RIAA's executives that they are Hitler, well, we can put an end to the whole SOPA bill.

this is America we are talking about, it will take a pretty long time to get rid of this if it is ever implemented, very, very long time.

At 12/14/11 08:00 PM, wildfire4461 wrote: I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

What I am trying to say here is a couple things. First, the reason we have even got to this point is how quickly and easily piraters and the people who freeride off of these systems switch. Back in the early days of file sharing, I switched from Napster, to Morpheus, to Kazaa, to DC, to DC++ in a matter of months. And this was back in the days of dial up and shitty internet.

The reason lack of notice is needed, at least for the TROs is that once a website knows they are on the target list, they can just go offline for a day and jump to a new server 100% intact. While they can do this anyway, the surpise tactic gives the government at least some ability to track the sites down before they go somewhere.

Camarohusky (considering you seem to believe you're the only one in this thread with any sense), why is it so hard to understand that people simply DON'T want to give those in power any more than they already have? It doesn't matter 'what' the bill will actually enforce. The problem is it enforces something. America is a mother-fucking democracy, and this bill seems to be just one more baby step towards socialism, and eventually a dictatorship. It amazes me that you AREN'T against it. The main argument that politicians give in favor of the bill is this:

"Well, it worked for China."

Last I checked, we didn't try to imitate China. But I suppose when one country owns more than half of another, cultural mish-mash is bound to happen.

This isn't directly related to the bill, but this is what all stars/musicians need to do:
http://news.yahoo.com/wake-up--media-mog uls--louis-c-k--no-drm-video-makes--200k .html
If people started doing this, the big companies would start bleeding red ink. Because face it. In the case of music once you sign a deal with one of the swine companies you sign away your rights to your music and what you can do with it. And no matter how popular you are they're still screwing you over in terms of profits. Even after your contract ends.

If the bill passes. I want to see huge boycotts of the supporting companies (making them bleed red ink is the only thing they'll understand), protests, everything.

At 12/14/11 10:03 PM, Morph94 wrote: Camarohusky (considering you seem to believe you're the only one in this thread with any sense), why is it so hard to understand that people simply DON'T want to give those in power any more than they already have?

Seeing as I have only heard ONE other person here even concede to the point that piracy exists and is a problem, it's kind of hard to not think I am one of very few with the slightests bit of sense at all. It's as if the anti-SOPA folks have found their point and are ignoring the 1 ton gorilla who is humping the 2 ton elephant in the room. The issue here is PIRACY.

It doesn't matter 'what' the bill will actually enforce. The problem is it enforces something.

I know seriously. We should like, legalize everything. That way the world will magically fall into place and there will be no crime at all!

America is a mother-fucking democracy, and this bill seems to be just one more baby step towards socialism, and eventually a dictatorship.

In a Democracy , EVERYONE has rights. Even those who OWN copyrights. Also, it is not a logical path from Democracy to socialism to dictatorship...

It amazes me that you AREN'T against it. The main argument that politicians give in favor of the bill is this:
"Well, it worked for China."

I don't care what the politicians say to the public. It is evidenced by the majority of the posts here that even the more educated crowds have neither the will, nor the aptitude, to read and understand legalese. So when a politician is trying to explain to the masses what bills are about and why, it's like trying to teach calculus to a fourth grader using simple multiplication. In other words, the politicians have to dumb down their ideas so the regulars will have the slightest clue what they are saying.

Last I checked, we didn't try to imitate China. But I suppose when one country owns more than half of another, cultural mish-mash is bound to happen.

SOPA is actually targetted heavily at China. The Mega Upload site that someone was complaining about, guess what? It's from China. China is perhaps the world's biggest source of pirated copyrights and counterfiet trademarks.

At 12/14/11 10:21 PM, wildfire4461 wrote: This isn't directly related to the bill, but this is what all stars/musicians need to do:
Even after your contract ends.

It's no secret that large music contracts, in the beginning, are geared to screw the artists. I'm not going to deny that one bit. Rumor (I've never researched this, so I'll leave it at 'rumor') is that Springstien made only $50K off of his first album when it went platinum many times over. This practice sounds bad, but in reality it isn't that bad. Yes, artists may get screwed on their first album, but if the first album is good enough, they will have the ability to renegotiate their contract. "How does this change anything?" you ask. Well, think about it. If The producers weren't able to make million soff of Springstein, would they have handed him the contract in the first place? An extremely low amount of recording contracts belong to artists who actually make it big. The super majority of these contracts go to artists who sell very little and often times, not even enough to recoup the promotion costs of the producer. So the industry of discovering artists is high risk. In order to incentivize the discoverers these contrcts become high reward. So when little Jane PopStar is discovered Mr. Producer has a good chance for failure, but a small chance for extreme success. If she fails to go anywhere, she essentially got her 15 minutes paid for. If she is a hit, she get shafted for album one, and then gets a news contract and rakes in the $$$. The only groups that really get the stick are one hit wonders. They make it big, and lose the money to the contract, but are unable to leverage any future money based on the fact they're no longer relevant anymore afterward.

Well, since the days of youtube and ubiquitous internet this has already begun to change massively. Let's all not forget where Mr. Bieber (the rudest Canadian ever) got his start? The internet has made an easy place for little known groups to easily and cheaply get their sound out to the world. It isn't the "machine" the big producers can offer, but the artists are in control and can reap a higher percentage of the profits.

So don't go around thinking the system is meant to fuck the poor guy, because it isn't. Frankly, a ton of poor guys have been given golden opportunities because of the producing giants who would not have been able to get that opportunity elsewhere.

If the bill passes. I want to see huge boycotts of the supporting companies (making them bleed red ink is the only thing they'll understand), protests, everything.

You make it sound as if your sole motivation in opposing SOPA and supporting idie music is to "fuck the big man". Think I am biased all you want (I am), but at least my bias isn't driven by the want to hurt others.

At 12/14/11 10:21 PM, wildfire4461 wrote: If the bill passes. I want to see huge boycotts of the supporting companies (making them bleed red ink is the only thing they'll understand), protests, everything.

boycotts because someone is fucking with our entertainment but not for taking down the huge corporations everyone is supposedly getting screwed by.
well done world, there will be no police state or crack-down, just corn syrup and reality tv.

Would ther Anti-SOPA people feel better if there were two things?

- A bench hearing available for all TROs granted under this law.

- The possibility of a Bivens action any time where there is abuse of power, or the possibility of waiver of sovereign immunity if this were the case?

These two things would provide a very strong check against the use of this law aginst sites that are not substantially geared toward piracy.

At 12/15/11 01:41 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

You make it sound as if your sole motivation in opposing SOPA and supporting idie music is to "fuck the big man". Think I am biased all you want (I am), but at least my bias isn't driven by the want to hurt others.

People shouldn't fear their government. The Government should fear the people (yes I fully support this line). That goes for businesses also.

Would ther Anti-SOPA people feel better if there were two things?

- A bench hearing available for all TROs granted under this law.

- The possibility of a Bivens action any time where there is abuse of power, or the possibility of waiver of sovereign immunity if this were the case?

These two things would provide a very strong check against the use of this law aginst sites that are not substantially geared toward piracy.

They added something which forces companies to get a court order to take it down, but that doesn't do shit. This bill cancels out the DMCA and all other copyright acts, which means FAIR USE IS GONE. A nasty little thing that's hidden in it.
More news links:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/2011121 5/08283617099/journalists-key-engineers-
who-built-internet-completely-opposed-to -sopa.shtml
http://mediamatters.org/blog/20111215001 0?frontpage
http://tucsoncitizen.com/gamerz/2011/12/
15/sopa-a-bill-that-will-send-you-to-pri son-for-watching-youtube-videos-is-being -voted-on-today/ (I like how it's worded)

You just can't get it through your god damn skull this bill will do more harm than good.
The tech industry is completely against it, which is why they aren't being allowed to voice their opinions in congress because the supporters know it could sway the opinion of those who are still on the fence about it. They know the way it's written it turns the US internet into China's.

The bottom line is this bill is SHIT. And those who support it are SHIT. It censors the internet under the guise of fighting piracy and takes this country 1 step closer to Totalitarianism (which some people on here seem to embrace).
The time to fight is now.

At 12/15/11 06:37 PM, wildfire4461 wrote: People shouldn't fear their government. The Government should fear the people (yes I fully support this line). That goes for businesses also.

So, in order to instill fear in business we have to do things for the sole purpose of hurting businesses and government?

They added something which forces companies to get a court order to take it down, but that doesn't do shit. This bill cancels out the DMCA and all other copyright acts, which means FAIR USE IS GONE. A nasty little thing that's hidden in it.

Big words. I provided a link to the exact language of the bill. Back up these statements and claims.

More news links:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/2011121 5/08283617099/journalists-key-engineers-
who-built-internet-completely-opposed-to -sopa.shtml
http://mediamatters.org/blog/20111215001 0?frontpage
http://tucsoncitizen.com/gamerz/2011/12/
15/sopa-a-bill-that-will-send-you-to-pri son-for-watching-youtube-videos-is-being -voted-on-today/ (I like how it's worded)

Guess how many words of the bill these three links quoted? ZERO. Instead of finding links of people flapping their lips. BACK IT UP! Really. I posted the bill on the first page of this thread. Read the language and quote me the portions that do ANY of the things you're claiming it does.

You just can't get it through your god damn skull this bill will do more harm than good.

Seeing as you haven't shown me a SHRED of proof for any of the claims you have made, I have a hard time believing them.

The tech industry is completely against it, which is why they aren't being allowed to voice their opinions in congress because the supporters know it could sway the opinion of those who are still on the fence about it. They know the way it's written it turns the US internet into China's.

I don't trust the tech industry when it comes to this. They know less about the law than I know about how to program a coputer. You wouldn't take my opinion on how to write software code, would you? Why the hell should I take these peoples' opinions on how to write a law? If they have researched this 1,000 time smore than the next guy on this board they'd still know almost nothing about this bill.

The bottom line is this bill is SHIT. And those who support it are SHIT. It censors the internet under the guise of fighting piracy and takes this country 1 step closer to Totalitarianism (which some people on here seem to embrace).

Prove a SINGLE claim of yours. Just ONE! It's not a big task! You can at least try instead of posting whine fests from people who haven't read the bill themselves.

The time to fight is now.

Fight what? What are we trying to fight here? The fact that some people have things and others don't? Or are we just trying to fight reality? Stop with this Faux-revolution crap. You're not revolting against anything.

God damn......

Who knew that a little remark on how I HATE this bill & a question about the AP would turn into a nasty argument over who's right or wrong.

All I've got to say is that I agree with what Wildfire has said. Especially this:

At 12/15/11 06:37 PM, wildfire4461 wrote: People shouldn't fear their government. The Government should fear the people (yes I fully support this line). That goes for businesses also.

This bill WILL hurt more than help. Especially with the amendment that was discussed earlier tonight.

SOPA is a terrible thing, it censors the internet by giving extreme power to the government and big corporation, the power to close down websites on the single pretense there might be someone who posted a link on it directing to something pirated. I cannot understand how anyone can defend it, exept if you have direct interests in seeing the bill pass.

At 12/15/11 06:37 PM, wildfire4461 wrote: The time to fight is now.

the world really needs to stop using the face of a guy whose claim to fame was attempting to depose a Protestant monarchy and replace it with a Catholic one. i can't say i've seen many symbols of freedom more asinine than the one you posted.

omgs it was a graphic novel; that changes everything.

At 12/15/11 10:54 PM, cjsnow1 wrote: This bill WILL hurt more than help. Especially with the amendment that was discussed earlier tonight.

Back up this cliam, son.

At 12/16/11 12:47 AM, VenomKing666 wrote: SOPA is a terrible thing, it censors the internet by giving extreme power to the government and big corporation, the power to close down websites on the single pretense there might be someone who posted a link on it directing to something pirated. I cannot understand how anyone can defend it, exept if you have direct interests in seeing the bill pass.

Flap your lips all you want. Back it up. Read the bill. Study the bill. Then post the parts which do ANY of what you claim it will do. Seriously. I'm asking for someone here to prove me wrong, yet no one has even tried.

Well your arguments are pretty much useless now because IT HAS BEEN DEFEATED IN THE HOUSE.
Reid will still push for it in the senate, though this is a tremendous blow to it.

At 12/16/11 05:49 PM, wildfire4461 wrote: Well your arguments are pretty much useless now because IT HAS BEEN DEFEATED IN THE HOUSE.
Reid will still push for it in the senate, though this is a tremendous blow to it.

It wasn't defeated in the House. Where do you even get your information on the bill? I ask because you clearly don't know jack shit about it. The vote was postponed while the House waits to get professionals who can testify on possible security risks that could be created by altering the domain-naming system of the internet. In fact there's already been a date set for the new hearing and it's Wednesday.

At 12/16/11 02:20 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

Flap your lips all you want. Back it up. Read the bill. Study the bill. Then post the parts which do ANY of what you claim it will do. Seriously. I'm asking for someone here to prove me wrong, yet no one has even tried.

Have you read the bid yourself? Do you even know what it does? You are implying you did. But there is no way you could have done so without seeing the obvious flaws in it giving permission to any big company to shut down a website if there is a link on it linking to something containing alleged copyrighted material. Link that could be put there by a user of the website and not the owner.

You are a fool with closed eyes screaming I DONT SEE ANYTHING WRONG YOU GUYS, YOU ARE FLIPPIN' OUT FOR NO GOOD REASON.

At 12/16/11 08:15 PM, VenomKing666 wrote:

Have you read the bid yourself? Do you even know what it does? You are implying you did. But there is no way you could have done so without seeing the obvious flaws in it giving permission to any big company to shut down a website if there is a link on it linking to something containing alleged copyrighted material. Link that could be put there by a user of the website and not the owner.

You are a fool with closed eyes screaming I DONT SEE ANYTHING WRONG YOU GUYS, YOU ARE FLIPPIN' OUT FOR NO GOOD REASON.

He also seems to be ignoring the PIPA bill that was rolled into it, which is even worse.
Guess the vote was just delayed for a few days. Nonetheless it's allowing even more opposition to it build up. The articles keep coming too, which is good: http://newyork.ibtimes.com/articles/2685 91/20111216/sopa-ndaa-embrace-misguided-
values-patriot-act.htm

A way to still access blacklisted sites if it passes: http://www.zeropaid.com/news/96964/emerg ency-ip-lists-emerging-in-event-sopa-pas ses/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=em ail&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+zeropaid+%28Zer opaid.com%29

At 12/16/11 08:15 PM, VenomKing666 wrote: Have you read the bid yourself? Do you even know what it does? You are implying you did. But there is no way you could have done so without seeing the obvious flaws in it giving permission to any big company to shut down a website if there is a link on it linking to something containing alleged copyrighted material. Link that could be put there by a user of the website and not the owner.

FYI. This ALREADY EXISTS. This is exactly what happened in MGM v. Grokster. If you had even tried to read the bill you'd knwo this has abotu ZERO to do with companies. It gives the government the power to shut off sites.

You are a fool with closed eyes screaming I DONT SEE ANYTHING WRONG YOU GUYS, YOU ARE FLIPPIN' OUT FOR NO GOOD REASON.

Seriously, will you just take the time to show me where any of these wild claims you make are going to happen because of the bill, please?

At 12/17/11 09:11 AM, wildfire4461 wrote: He also seems to be ignoring the PIPA bill that was rolled into it, which is even worse.

Please point to the relevent section in the bill that does this.

The articles keep coming too, which is good: http://newyork.ibtimes.com/articles/2685 91/20111216/sopa-ndaa-embrace-misguided-

values-patriot-act.htm

This is an opinion piece. Doesn't cite are quote any of the bill it discusses. I'm starting to question whether you know the meaning of "source" or "proof". I am begging someone to show me that I am worng, and I am leaving my neck out on this one. Seriously, somebody just do the damn leg work for your claims and slam me with it.

Statutes work based on the text. It is extremely rare that anything gets added into a statute that wasn't in the text. So if it isn't in the text, it's not going to happen! So show me the text where your problems exist. I already pointed out the part where sites can be shut down ex parte. Show me where PIPA was rolled in, or where other copyright statutes will be destroyed, or where fair use is being eliminated.

Since this is basically the Camarohusky vs anti-SOPA people thread ('cause everyone else migrated to Tom's thread on it), I'm going to post my response to his challenge on here rather than the official thread.

I looked and looked through the link you provided for the SOPA act, Camarohusky, and couldn't find anything about portions of a site getting a site knocked off the internet. That's because you never provided a link to SOPA, but to PIPA - a less threatening (but still no good) bill on piracy where your arguments might have some validity. This is the SOPA bill, and allow me to direct you to the portions that are causing people to shit their pants.

Sec. 103. a. 1. DEDICATED TO THEFT OF U.S. PROPERTY.-An ''Internet site is dedicated to theft of U.S. property'' if- (A) it is an Internet site, or a portion thereof, that is a U.S.-directed site and is used by users within the United States;

If there is a portion of the site that has illegal material on it, it is enough to warrant the effects of the bill. That is where people are getting the 'If someone posts an illegal link on the site, it'll get shut down' bit. Or, more accurately, if there is a link on the site then it'll enact the law... which pretty close to amounts to the same thing.

Throughout the bill, advertisers, domain providers, search engines and most other forms of suport for a site must withdraw their support within five days from the entire site (you can't withdraw support for a single page), as detailed in Sec. 102. c. 2.. If these providers do not comply then they will suffer an injunctive relief from the Attorney General (meaning the Attorney General will pressure them legally to act in accordance to the bill), as is stated in Sec. 102. c. 4..

I would like to ask you, Camarohusky, where in the bill I linked to, it gives due process to the owners of a site by allowing them a fair trial, or where it tells the site to attempt to deal with the site owner first before presenting it t the attorney general. If it exists, I haven't found it - all notification is to be provided only after the fact - which means it bypasses the site owners entirely and enacts the bill without their prior knowledge. From what I read, even if all that's available to show an infringement is a statement made in good faith (forgot the precise section), the attorney general will act on the claim. That's action taken without allowing the victims enough time to respond to a claim before a site shutdown (it's a five day MAXIMUM, so action will be taken before then).

The damages are irreparable. If, say, Newgrounds was forced out of it's funding due to a single infringement somewhere that slipped under the radar and the internet providers don't allow others to visit the site and advertisers are forced to remove their support, guess what? Tom won't be able to pay for the site, and will be forced to stop paying the domain provider for their space, and everything will be gone. Sure, if a claim is shown to be false then the person who made the claim will be responsible to pay for the damages and whatnot, but what was lost wasn't something that could be payed for - it was the content, and it doesn't come back.

This is all assuming the best case scenario with Tom being able to afford the legal fees involved in presenting this case to the attorney general, which more likely than not he won't be able to. In which case, even if the claim wasn't true, the site is lost forever. This is also assuming after all the advertisers, service providers and search engines have gone through the legal trouble with the site they are even willing to provide their services again. Once bitten, twice shy, after all, and in that case the site will still be lost, even if he convinces the court that there was no infringement.

These are conclusions that are being drawn strictly from the wording of the bill. I would like you to actually read the correct bill this time and tell me where I'm going wrong, because I seriously hope I'm reading this horribly wrong.

At 12/23/11 02:32 AM, Gario wrote: I looked and looked through the link you provided for the SOPA act, Camarohusky, and couldn't find anything about portions of a site getting a site knocked off the internet. That's because you never provided a link to SOPA, but to PIPA - a less threatening (but still no good) bill on piracy where your arguments might have some validity. This is the SOPA bill, and allow me to direct you to the portions that are causing people to shit their pants.

It's nice to see someone actually do some leg work.

Sec. 103. a. 1. DEDICATED TO THEFT OF U.S. PROPERTY.-An ''Internet site is dedicated to theft of U.S. property'' if- (A) it is an Internet site, or a portion thereof, that is a U.S.-directed site and is used by users within the United States;

I am going to have to stop you here because you stopped one word early...

That word is

"AND"

The "and" ties 103(a) to 103(b) which qualifies any action on a site having an illegal item, upon that site that either... well now my adobe isn't working. But I remember it speaking of the same languagwe as is PIPA. This is along the lines of a site that is either solely or almost wholly dedicated to comitting or facilitating piracy, or a site that has done some other form of direct support of piracy.

So what sound like a really wide sword, 103(a) is greatly shrunk by the "and" with its conjunctive 103(b) limits.

Both these acts are, in laymens terms, pieces of murloc sh*t. I be hatin' Congress.

At 11/20/11 02:03 AM, Mechwarrior300 wrote: Don't panic. There is literally nothing to worry about unless you're a criminal.

wait what