Most of are probably aware of SOPA (Stop online pirating) Bill but for those who don't know let me give you a brief synopsis... Ahem...Giant internet kill switch! The US of A of all places is trying to pass this asinine bill that will give Big Media corp. the power to shut down funding, access, and even existence, of any site "alleged" of copyright infringement. Now I don’t live in the US but form what my history book says you have a law that states that the people of America have the right of freedom of speech, Doesn't this break that old tradition? I meen your favoret sites Youtube, DA FA 4chan.ect would have to censore big time there users or face extinction.
Tell me what you think http://lifehacker.com/5860205/all-about-sopa-the-bill-thats-going-to-cripple-your-internet

So much freaking out over a bill that won't even pass. It's too destructive and many big names are fighting tooth and nail against it. Quit fearmongering.

ExplosiveBlaziken said:
So much freaking out over a bill that won't even pass. It's too destructive and many big names are fighting tooth and nail against it. Quit fearmongering.

Iam mearly informing not fearmongering, i mearly wanted to her others opinons not to start a riot.

it did concern me when i first found out about it, but then i got over it after i realized how absolutely retarded it was

0904255 said:
it did concern me when i first found out about it, but then i got over it after i realized how absolutely retarded it was

Indeed the yanks Gov abviously dose not understand that the internet is owned by everyone.

Once you pay attention to politics in the US long enough, you'll realize that this stupid shit is the norm. If our government and politicians aren't doing or saying something incredibly retarded at any given time, then something is wrong.

FurZ said:
Once you pay attention to politics in the US long enough, you'll realize that this stupid shit is the norm. If our government and politicians aren't doing or saying something incredibly retarded at any given time, then something is wrong.

Yeah, which is the scary thing here. It's absolutely dumb enough to pass. The US government is completely bought and paid for all the way from the dinkiest local representative on up to the White House, and has been for decades and decades. The people in Washington and State Capitals look out for corporate interests, not the people they purport to be representing, anyone who thinks otherwise is very naive.

LightintheDarkness said:
Indeed the yanks Gov abviously dose not understand that the internet is owned by everyone.

Look up ACTA. It's not just the US government that puts corporate interests over individual rights.

This is just one of many bills of this type that they've tried passing. None of the others have made it, and this one isn't looking to fair any better.

Shatari said:
This is just one of many bills of this type that they've tried passing. None of the others have made it, and this one isn't looking to fair any better.

Even if it did pass, there would be an immediate lawsuit against it in Federal court. An injunction would follow, barring enforcement until the courts decided the case.

Whether or not the lower courts strike it down, the loser will appeal the decision to a higher court and the injunction will continue. Whatever that outcome, it would then be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, and the injunction would continue. For a recent example of this process, see Schwarzenegger/Brown vs. EMA.

I can't imagine that SCOTUS would possibly decide in favor of the bill. Not only are there Free Speech problems, but also Due Process ones. This bill seems to attempt to circumvent Constitutional rights. It would be much less expensive for everyone if the bill dies without being signed into law.

Disclaimer: IANAL, and my country seems to have the worst government in the world (except for everyone else).

I remember a similar bill being pushed several years ago which fell through. I'm not worried.

ExplosiveBlaziken said:
So much freaking out over a bill that won't even pass. It's too destructive and many big names are fighting tooth and nail against it. Quit fearmongering.

It has frighteningly strong support in both House and Senate, Blaz. There are big names fighting it, true, like Google, Yahoo, and Twitter. But there are other big names that brought it forth to begin with: The RIAA, Warner Brothers, MPAA, Pfizer. HUGE names. And, unfortunately, Google isn't as strong as it looks, as far as Capitol Hill goes. They're looking at anti-trust investigations right now. It's not fearmongering to say "Hey guys, check out this shit that could go down."

Unlike Ippiki, I am worried. I know Huff Post isn't the most unbiased news site, but they tend to be reliable.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/16/sopa-internet-censorship-online-piracy-house-hearing_n_1098255.html

Bi-partisan support is worrisome.

If it's passed and Obama doesn't Veto it, I think Anonymous should flood any sites owned by supporting companies with material copyrighted by those companies who oppose it. That'd be pretty hilarious.

There's a bill like this almost every year. They usually have bipartisan support and opposition. Eventually one will pass. Might get amended though.

There are a lot of men in Congress. Just tell them, "Think of the porn," and they'll tear that bill in half.

Please, freedom of speech doesn't apply to every freaking issue you disagree with.

And here's something to think about: if you're not violating copyright law, what do you need to worry about? Don't post content that isn't yours without permission, and there will be no problem.

And if you really think they're going to censor or block Facebook, you'd be out of your mind.

JoeX said:
There are a lot of men in Congress. Just tell them, "Think of the porn," and they'll tear that bill in half.

this.

hg3300 said:
Please, freedom of speech doesn't apply to every freaking issue you disagree with.

And here's something to think about: if you're not violating copyright law, what do you need to worry about? Don't post content that isn't yours without permission, and there will be no problem.

And if you really think they're going to censor or block Facebook, you'd be out of your mind.

I DON'T post material that is copyrighted, yet I would be affected. This bill does nothing to stop individuals who infringe upon copyright law, but rather allows copyright holders to shut down entire sites if there is material of the copyright holder, even if that material was put there by users. It doesn't punish the user who placed it there, it allows the copyright owner to insist that the ISP and domain registrar to stop doing business with them. The MPAA would indeed have the legal right to insist that all of YouTube be shut down for a single violation.

P.S. The version being pushed in the House has a bit added on that would make it a felony to stream copyrighted videos or music. That means years of hard time, high fines, and loss of the right to vote, for breaking copyright law once.

RedOctober said:
I DON'T post material that is copyrighted, yet I would be affected. This bill does nothing to stop individuals who infringe upon copyright law, but rather allows copyright holders to shut down entire sites if there is material of the copyright holder, even if that material was put there by users. It doesn't punish the user who placed it there, it allows the copyright owner to insist that the ISP and domain registrar to stop doing business with them. The MPAA would indeed have the legal right to insist that all of YouTube be shut down for a single violation.

P.S. The version being pushed in the House has a bit added on that would make it a felony to stream copyrighted videos or music. That means years of hard time, high fines, and loss of the right to vote, for breaking copyright law once.

well, if that is the case, I don't see this bill going through. that is, as long as it's publicized enough.

hg3300 said:
well, if that is the case, I don't see this bill going through. that is, as long as it's publicized enough.

That's the important bit. I still worry, because our legislators are in the pockets of the drug companies and media companies that are pushing for this (I have no clue why people like Pfizer support it. They shouldn't have a dog in this fight.) and may vote it through even if the popular support isn't there.

We shall see.

RedOctober said:
That's the important bit. I still worry, because our legislators are in the pockets of the drug companies and media companies that are pushing for this (I have no clue why people like Pfizer support it. They shouldn't have a dog in this fight.) and may vote it through even if the popular support isn't there.

We shall see.

Pfizer has a spot because it will mean that overseas drug markets are completely shut down in us

It's all but dead now. Also, who will be joining me in not watching any new movies over this?

I like traffic cones, they're like icecream cones for the street. :D

cookiekangaroo said:
I like traffic cones, they're like icecream cones for the street. :D

o-O

Aurali said:
It's all but dead now. Also, who will be joining me in not watching any new movies over this?

Well, I won't be watching any new movies. Not because of this, I just don't really like movies.

Aurali said:
It's all but dead now. Also, who will be joining me in not watching any new movies over this?

I haven't watched a new movie in years. I typically only get to see them if I can buy the DVD second hand at a flea market.

cookiekangaroo said:
I like traffic cones, they're like icecream cones for the street. :D

Ah, a fellow traffic cone enthusiast! I happen to be a member of the Traffic Cone Preservation Society's North American branch, and I have quite the collection of the dear things safely living on my farm. They're some of the older orange/black hornet variety, though I do hope to acquire some yellow/black hornets for crossbreeding purposes.

Aurali said:
Pfizer has a spot because it will mean that overseas drug markets are completely shut down in us

That makes sense.

Aurali said:
It's all but dead now. Also, who will be joining me in not watching any new movies over this?

If it were any different than my norm, I so would.

RedOctober said:
That makes sense.

If it were any different than my norm, I so would.

I actually used to go to the movies.. NOT ANYMORE THOUGH.

Aurali said:
I actually used to go to the movies.. NOT ANYMORE THOUGH.

I used to sometimes. I now do raaaaarely. But I actually went, yesterday. Saw the new Muppets movie. It was awesome. Started out pretty iffy, but shit got real.

Jim Henson is my hero.

Is e621 in for the blackout?

Clairese said:
Is e621 in for the blackout?

Yup.

Clairese said:
Is e621 in for the blackout?

Yes, we are going down on the 18-- oh hey we're back up now

No.

Clairese said:
Is e621 in for the blackout?

No.

Clairese said:
Is e621 in for the blackout?

Actually I just wanted a day off. :3c

Lol, because I'm guessing that question was asked within minutes of the start of the blackout.

Also, serious flashbacks to September of 2010. More reason to protest to my senator and representatives, I guess.

Also, very glad to hear about all of the co-sponsors of the SOPA and PIPA backtracking. Hopefully these bills die a fast death after the internet blackout.

Fuck SOPA/PIPA!

Lame, bill is Lame... Stupid Lamar Smith.

Well that was fun.

Well, I think it's appropriate to say that SOPA needs to be killed with fire.

Well for all technicality, e621 being a place for people to upload crap would be one of those places which would likely be significantly affected by this bill. So it actually makes sense for e621 to black out.

If you think this bill thing was stupid, look up NDAA and ask the first person you meet if they've ever heard of it.

I smell a ploy for domination here.

Haki said:
If you think this bill thing was stupid, look up NDAA and ask the first person you meet if they've ever heard of it.

I smell a ploy for domination here.

Unless you're referring to the human rights issue of that bill, I don't see anything suspicious with that. If you're referring to the human rights issue of that bill, then eh. Being from somewhere which also practices similar standards for counter terrorism, I would say that it's not as big of a deal as it seems. But that's a somewhat seperate argument regardless.

Lyokira said:
Unless you're referring to the human rights issue of that bill, I don't see anything suspicious with that. If you're referring to the human rights issue of that bill, then eh. Being from somewhere which also practices similar standards for counter terrorism, I would say that it's not as big of a deal as it seems. But that's a somewhat seperate argument regardless.

What's suspicious is how and when it became law, this thing was passed about two weeks ago and barely anyone knew about it.

It may not sound bad but what it basically says is that the government even suspects you may be doing any benefit for terrorists, your ass is in Guantanamo until they feel like letting you go.

If you have thoughts rattling around inside your head, you knew about NDAA when it was being debated in Congress and before.

null0010 said:
If you have thoughts rattling around inside your head, you knew about NDAA when it was being debated in Congress and before.

I never heard anything about it, two weeks ago the only thing I heard about was this SOPA/PIPA. At first I though it wasn't going to be a big deal since I knew how many real corporations were going to be financially punched in the dick by it, but I read nor heard anything about this NDAA, only about the debate and how Mitt Romney is a rich guy who makes bets using single house payments.

And even if I did hear about it I'm sure that would be more of a concern than this since it's tromping over a quite important right in the constitution.

All that said, in my honest opinion SOPA/PIPA won't last because of how many major organizations could collapse.

What did we do yesterday? The site seemed to be back to normal already when I checked.

i find it funny i had an internet outage the same day as the blackout.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16642369
Great timing too.

Haki said:
What's suspicious is how and when it became law, this thing was passed about two weeks ago and barely anyone knew about it.

It may not sound bad but what it basically says is that the government even suspects you may be doing any benefit for terrorists, your ass is in Guantanamo until they feel like letting you go.

http://gawker.com/5865089/20-things-you-should-know-about-americas-most-horrifying-new-law
rite here!

http://i.imgur.com/UWPDG.jpg
Wahahaha~

Nevermind

Axelfox said:
A sharp contrast to the government of 1776 which was stuff like limited government.

have you ever even READ a history textbook

null0010 said:
have you ever even READ a history textbook

Nevermind.

Honestly I have 2 issues with that law. Why only specifically Taliban/Al Qaeda instead of general terrorism? And why not more safeguards? (not against indefinate detention, but against unjustified indefinate dention)

Haki said:
If you think this bill thing was stupid, look up NDAA and ask the first person you meet if they've ever heard of it.

I smell a ploy for domination here.

Yuuuuuuuuupp. NDAA gets ignored, 'cause people gotta have their prons, but the possibility of being incarcerated indefinitely without charges being brought against them just because some gov't official somewhere claimed they had suspicions of wrongdoing? Meh, who cares.

RedOctober said:
Yuuuuuuuuupp. NDAA gets ignored, 'cause people gotta have their prons, but the possibility of being incarcerated indefinitely without charges being brought against them just because some gov't official somewhere claimed they had suspicions of wrongdoing? Meh, who cares.

Granted one would consider the president of USA somewhat more noteworthy than being "some gov't official somewhere", but eh. There's a good reason why US citizens have that right to bear arms...

Lyokira said:
Honestly I have 2 issues with that law. Why only specifically Taliban/Al Qaeda instead of general terrorism? And why not more safeguards? (not against indefinate detention, but against unjustified indefinate dention)

My main issue is that it was a poison pill slapped on to a bill that could not be delayed without screwing over our military. We really need to ban the ability to tack things on to a bill at the last moment. On the upshot, they're going to write another bill to address it and place limitations on it.

Ratty said:
Yeah, which is the scary thing here. It's absolutely dumb enough to pass. The US government is completely bought and paid for all the way from the dinkiest local representative on up to the White House, and has been for decades and decades. The people in Washington and State Capitals look out for corporate interests, not the people they purport to be representing, anyone who thinks otherwise is very naive.

Look up ACTA. It's not just the US government that puts corporate interests over individual rights.

I smiled <3

SOPA and PIPA have officially been shelved for the time-being.

http://mashable.com/2012/01/20/sopa-is-dead-smith-pulls-bill/

Lamar Smith, the chief sponsor of SOPA, said on Friday that he is pulling the bill “until there is wider agreement on a solution.”

That doesn't mean they're both gone for good. It just means that they've pulled back for the time-being. Still, it's a good sign.

Anti-piracy legislation is inevitable. It's also necessary.

The only issue is making sure it's much, much more reasonable than the methods being proposed today (SOPA/PIPA).

KloH0und said:
Anti-piracy legislation is inevitable. It's also necessary.

The only issue is making sure it's much, much more reasonable than the methods being proposed today (SOPA/PIPA).

Actully, I disagree with this, for the sole reason that anti-piracy is a band-aid which does not solve the root problem that the creative portion of creative works simply isn't tangible, and may simply have to revert to a service industry instead of a product industry.

Here's the contact line for Representatives.

https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

Tell them to support the OPEN act.

Stuff like this makes me not want to live on this planet anymore.

nevermind.

Axelfox said:
Attention congress,if this bill passes,i will be sure to vote against you in the 2012 november elections.

Question: How can you vote against congress as a whole?

Test-Subject_217601 said:
Question: How can you vote against congress as a whole?

You have to be a Green Lantern.

Actini said:
You have to be a Green Lantern.

Can I be a Black Lantern instead? They're way cooler than Green Lanterns.

Test-Subject_217601 said:
Can I be a Black Lantern instead? They're way cooler than Green Lanterns.

No. If you're a Black Lantern then Congress votes against you.

I'm a Star Sapphire.

KloH0und said:
No. If you're a Black Lantern then Congress votes against you.

Pfft, maybe in Soviet Russia.

Test-Subject_217601 said:

KloH0und said:
Congress

...in Soviet Russia.

post #153318

Test-Subject_217601 said:
Question: How can you vote against congress as a whole?

Sorry,i meant vote against ones in my state.

To find out who your representatives are (and thus who you're voting against), go to http://www.govtrack.us/congress/findyourreps.xpd. I was able to find my representatives from just my 5-digit zip code, but I don't live near any of the boundary lines between representatives.

Just be careful - there were, in fact, a few congresslings who were against SOPA and PIPA. You should determine their stances before arbitrarily voting them out, or else you might vote out the wrong people.

http://news.yahoo.com/congress-puts-brakes-anti-piracy-bills-050144281.html

This may come as a shock,but Lamar Smith one of the founders of the bill has copyright violations on his website.

Axelfox said:
This may come as a shock,but Lamar Smith one of the founders of the bill has copyright violations on his website.

He's removed the images in question.

This bill is supremely stupid. I live in canada and they have tried and it didn't succeed so I know SOPA won't pass