(Close Window)
Topic: SOPA, and you thoughts
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (Jan 10, 2012 10:51PM)
A great number of websites are not happy with this bill, and several (my favorite site, Reddit, being one) are having "blackout" days, some people are switching their business to sites that do not support the bill (StopOnlinePriacyAct). Godaddy.com supported in the beginning, but after a public outcry, it appears they backed down.

So, your thoughts? Any staff member care to take a shot?

1/18 is when reddit will go dark
http://blog.reddit.com/2012/01/stopped-they-must-be-on-this-all.html
Message: Posted by: Tom Cutts (Jan 10, 2012 11:13PM)
Wait, so Reddit only survives by stealing Intellectual Property.

Interesting.
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (Jan 11, 2012 12:00AM)
I certainly didn't say that.. YouTube could find itself in the same spot.


When I said staff, I meant from a Café point of view. No offense.
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (Jan 11, 2012 12:02AM)
Cool. The Café puts its own mark on the "e". Snazzy
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 11, 2012 12:06AM)
"Flambe."

Edit- Huh. Didn't work.
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (Jan 11, 2012 12:14AM)
Haha
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (Jan 12, 2012 01:39PM)
Now wiki is involved.. not just that one site, reddit..

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/wikipedias-wales-wants-to-join-reddits-sopa-blackout/2012/01/11/gIQAQ9nrrP_story.html
Message: Posted by: MobilityBundle (Jan 15, 2012 12:45AM)
SOPA gets unfairly harsh treatment in the press. Although it's far from perfect, a lot of the fervor is unjustified in my opinion.

A lot of the criticism comes in the form of "SOPA is terrible because it gives the US government / the corporate elite the power to censor the internet virtually at will, with no recourse available to the victims of censorship." In actuality, the "targets" of SOPA are pretty tightly defined, and there are checks and balances built in to the bill to mitigate abuses.

... which is not to say the bill is perfect. In my mind, the most serious criticism has nothing to do with shades of "Big Brother," but rather there are some technological problems that suggest the bill won't accomplish what it aims to accomplish. For networking geeks interested in more detail, see here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/73106069/Napolitano-Response-Rep-Lofgren-11-16-11-c
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 16, 2012 12:29PM)
SOPA is not going to happen during the present Congress. [url=http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120113/23560217407/sopa-delayed-cantor-promises-it-wont-be-brought-to-floor-until-issues-are-addressed.shtml]Representative Issa stated:[/url]

[quote]"While I remain concerned about Senate action on the Protect IP Act, I am confident that flawed legislation will not be taken up by this House. Majority Leader Cantor has assured me that we will continue to work to address outstanding concerns and work to build consensus prior to any anti-piracy legislation coming before the House for a vote,” said Chairman Issa. “The voice of the Internet community has been heard. Much more education for Members of Congress about the workings of the Internet is essential if anti-piracy legislation is to be workable and achieve broad appeal.”

"Earlier tonight, Chairman Smith announced that he will remove the DNS blocking provision from his legislation. Although SOPA, despite the removal of this provision, is still a fundamentally flawed bill, I have decided that postponing the scheduled hearing on DNS blocking with technical experts is the best course of action at this time. Right now, the focus of protecting the Internet needs to be on the Senate where Majority Leader Reid has announced his intention to try to move similar legislation in less than two weeks." [/quote]
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 16, 2012 12:50PM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-15 01:45, MobilityBundle wrote:
SOPA gets unfairly harsh treatment in the press. Although it's far from perfect, a lot of the fervor is unjustified in my opinion.

A lot of the criticism comes in the form of "SOPA is terrible because it gives the US government / the corporate elite the power to censor the internet virtually at will, with no recourse available to the victims of censorship." In actuality, the "targets" of SOPA are pretty tightly defined, and there are checks and balances built in to the bill to mitigate abuses.

... which is not to say the bill is perfect. In my mind, the most serious criticism has nothing to do with shades of "Big Brother," but rather there are some technological problems that suggest the bill won't accomplish what it aims to accomplish. For networking geeks interested in more detail, see here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/73106069/Napolitano-Response-Rep-Lofgren-11-16-11-c
[/quote]

Right, because no government legislation has ever opened the door for "unintended" consequences, nor have they ever been used to go after people they were clearly not intended for, and the checks and balances ALWAY keep everything in check, and balanced.

Many of the problems come from exactly how the "targets" are described. The descriptions leave plenty open, and include far more than just those "pirating" material.
Message: Posted by: MobilityBundle (Jan 16, 2012 02:15PM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-16 13:50, gdw wrote:

Many of the problems come from exactly how the "targets" are described. The descriptions leave plenty open, and include far more than just those "pirating" material.
[/quote]

How so? (Care to elaborate?)
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 16, 2012 02:42PM)
I'd have to double check the current bill, as it probably has gone through some changes since I last looked into it thoroughly, but some kid uploading a video of them doing karaoke would be open to being pulled.

Essentially any site that allows for user posted material, which, now adapts is pretty much all of them, would be open to being taken off line.
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (Jan 16, 2012 04:18PM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-16 15:42, gdw wrote:
I'd have to double check the current bill, as it probably has gone through some changes since I last looked into it thoroughly, but some kid uploading a video of them doing karaoke would be open to being pulled.

Essentially any site that allows for user posted material, which, now adapts is pretty much all of them, would be open to being taken off line.
[/quote]

This was why I posted it here, and asked for an opinion from the staff (about the Café). If passed, and yeah-it's out now, but someday, something like it will pass, I could link a youtube vid here (that maybe has a scene from "the sting" in it, and then maybe the Café could itself be shut down.
Message: Posted by: MobilityBundle (Jan 16, 2012 06:14PM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-16 15:42, gdw wrote:
I'd have to double check the current bill, as it probably has gone through some changes since I last looked into it thoroughly, but some kid uploading a video of them doing karaoke would be open to being pulled.

Essentially any site that allows for user posted material, which, now adapts is pretty much all of them, would be open to being taken off line.
[/quote]

What if I told you that that wasn't the case -- not by a longshot? Not in the current bill, and not as it originally read? It may be useful to have the full text of the bill handy. So here it is:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:1:./temp/~c112RtWXUf:e11714:

The current bill has two modes of enforcement: enforcement by the Attorney General (title II, section 102), and enforcement by "the market" (title II, section 103). "The market" are the copyright holders... think Viacom, Sony, etc.

The AG can only take action against "foreign infringing sites." That is defined in section 102(a), but basically means a foreign site that is already committing [b]criminal[/b] infringement (under existing law), AND would be subject to seizure in the U.S., if it weren't foreign.

In other words, SOPA doesn't extend enforcement beyond the extent to which existing criminal law is defined. To be sure, it takes a lot to *criminally* infringe intellectual property. Even uploading unquestionably copyrighted content to, say, YouTube isn't criminally infringing. To criminally infringe requires (among other things) that the infringer commercially profit from the infringement.

As for the Viacoms and Sonys (Sonies?) of the world, they can only go after sites that are "dedicated to theft of U.S. property." That phrase is defined in section 103(a)(1). There are two ways to be dedicated to theft of U.S. property:

One way involves being "primarily designed or operated for the purpose of" infringing. (section 103(a)(1)(B)(i).) Think, for example, a site that earns 95% of its cash by streaming copyrighted movies. In particular, it'd be really hard to characterize The Magic Café (or even YouTube) as *primarily* designed to infringe. At the very least, that can be evinced by the high proportion of non-copyrighted (or legitimately licensed) content on either site.

The other way involves a site whose operators take "deliberate actions to avoid confirming a high probability of" infringement. Section 103(a)(1)(B)(ii). It's unclear what the full scope of that means, but two things are clear: turning a blind eye to notifications of infringement (like a DMCA takedown notice) probably counts. However, SOPA makes clear up front (title I, sec. 2) that it does not abrogate any of the "safe harbor" provisions of the DMCA. That includes the idea that there is no affirmative duty of site operators to police their sites for infringing content.

Okay, so in the market based regime, if Sony wants to hit a foreign infringing site, it has to follow the same DMCA-like procedure of sending a notification, giving the content provider an opportunity to send a counter-notification explaining why they don't believe their stuff to infringe, and if there's still a dispute they get to go to court.

In that regard, it's the same balance as the DMCA.

Now, you might not like the DMCA. It, like anything else, has potential for abuse. But my point is that you shouldn't have any more of a problem with SOPA than you do with DMCA.
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (Jan 16, 2012 06:29PM)
So, my "Ma-nah Ma-nah" playing cat is safe?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aJS1coYFi0&feature=g-upl&context=G2661fccAUAAAAAAABAA
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 16, 2012 06:38PM)
Good thing I've got big problems with the dmca.
As for sopa, we will see. Even if the bill was absolute the most clear, concise, loopholeless, perfect bill ever written, I guarantee you it would lead to abuses.
Message: Posted by: MobilityBundle (Jan 16, 2012 06:44PM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-16 19:29, ed rhodes wrote:
So, my "Ma-nah Ma-nah" playing cat is safe?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aJS1coYFi0&feature=g-upl&context=G2661fccAUAAAAAAABAA
[/quote]

The cat is certainly safe from SOPA. It's hard to characterize YouTube as either a foreign infringing site, or a site dedicated to theft of U.S. property. For that reason, it's completely beyond the scope of SOPA. To be clear: absent radical changes to how YouTube works, *anything* on YouTube is beyond the scope of SOPA.

Whether the cat is beyond the scope of the DMCA is another question, and not one I can answer here. For example, if the ma-nah ma -nah rights holder licensed the song to the manufacturers of the cat, then it'd be tough to argue that the video is infringing. Otherwise, it'd be easier.

That question notwithstanding, it's not clear to me (... it never is...) whether there's a fair use defense for the creator of the video. (There's almost certainly not a fair use defense for the manufacturer of the cat, but that's yet another question.)
Message: Posted by: MobilityBundle (Jan 16, 2012 06:45PM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-16 19:38, gdw wrote:
Good thing I've got big problems with the dmca.
As for sopa, we will see. Even if the bill was absolute the most clear, concise, loopholeless, perfect bill ever written, I guarantee you it would lead to abuses.
[/quote]

Yeah, that's kind of vacuous though. Virtually any law is capable of abuse. To expect otherwise is setting your sites too high. At least in my opinion.
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (Jan 17, 2012 02:37AM)
Then why is it that nearly every story regarding SOPA mentions YouTube, along with wiki, Facebook etc?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 17, 2012 02:57AM)
Probably because unlike a number of posts in this thread, Nearly every story isn't written by a practicing IP lawyer.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 17, 2012 04:08AM)
I suspect that Google and Wikipedia and other sites opposed to the bill have quite a few of the pertinent lawyers on hand.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 17, 2012 04:54AM)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/wikipedia-blackout-coming-jan-18-says-co-founder-jimmy-wales/2012/01/16/gIQAh2Ke3P_blog.html
Message: Posted by: MobilityBundle (Jan 17, 2012 05:42AM)
Kcg5: Yeah, I'm not sure. I don't ever expect the press to get every little detail of an article right. With really difficult stuff, I'm even happy if they get into the ballpark. But with the general coverage of SOPA, I'm really perplexed. The statute is pretty clear. I mean, it's not the type of thing that I'd expect a sixth grader to sit down and read. But if you're charged with writing an article on a piece of legislation, it seems like you should at least spend an hour or two reading the legislation.

I suspect what happened is that someone did a bad job of doing that (perhaps in the name of getting their article out quickly?), and then everyone else just aped the first article.

Landmark: Sure, many of the companies that have come out against SOPA surely don't take their legal advice from blogs and the press. I have no doubt that the Googles of the world know exactly what SOPA says and doesn't say. So why are they so vociferously against SOPA? For one, as a technological matter it arguably doesn't work. (See the Sandia National Labs letter I linked to above.)

However, there are press releases and open letters that mention how SOPA would hinder innovation and job creation. I don't see how that's anything but (at most) tangentially true, and I've never seen it explained.

Ultimately, it might be more of a perception issue. It's telling, for example, that Go Daddy originally came out in support of SOPA, but reversed its course in the wake of tremendous market pressure. I wonder to what extent the Googles of the world are simply pounding their chest because they fear the negative press more than the fear the bill itself.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 17, 2012 11:33PM)
Looks like Google is promoting awareness of this thing too.
Message: Posted by: Lyndel (Jan 18, 2012 08:16AM)
██ ██████ ███ █████████ ██████ █████████ ██ ██ ██████ ███ █████████ ██████ ██ ██████ ███ █████████ ██████ █████████ ██ ██ ██████ ███ █████████ ██████ ██ ██████ ███ █████████ ██████ █████████ ██ ██ ██████ ███ █████████ ██████ ██ ██████ ███ █████████ ██████ █████████ ██ ██ ██████ ███ █████████ ██████.


█████████
Message: Posted by: Kevin Ridgeway (Jan 18, 2012 09:46AM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-17 06:42, MobilityBundle wrote:
Ultimately, it might be more of a perception issue. It's telling, for example, that Go Daddy originally came out in support of SOPA, but reversed its course in the wake of tremendous market pressure. I wonder to what extent the Googles of the world are simply pounding their chest because they fear the negative press more than the fear the bill itself.
[/quote]

That's the definition of capitalism...we vote with our dollars. Godaddy stood to lose a lot of customers & money.
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (Jan 18, 2012 11:11AM)
I still think it would affect YouTube, Flickr, Facebook etc. I've read and seen far touch about this recently, and it's always described the same way. Not that I doubt the lee baileys at the Café...
Message: Posted by: Slide (Jan 18, 2012 11:23AM)
SOPA would allow anyone to complain that a site contained their intellectual property and ISP's would have to block access to that site. If I complain that the themagiccafe.com contains my intellectual property, the bill would force ISP's to block access to themagicafe.com. The complaintants do not have to prove their point , they just have to complain. It will break the internet as we know it. Hence the black out today. Truly bad legislation.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jan 18, 2012 11:35AM)
Funny SOPA graphic here:

http://theoatmeal.com/sopa

I would post it here, but if I do so it fails to load from the very start. So best to go to the source to see it.
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (Jan 18, 2012 11:40AM)
So... What's the general consensus as to what SOPA could do? Some of you guys think it would've done nothing, some seen to think it would have been major.
Message: Posted by: Slide (Jan 18, 2012 01:53PM)
Any one with any knowledge of the matter thinks it is a disaster. I moderate a forum of some of the most knowledgeable people in the industry on these matters and the consensus among them all is that this is very poor legislation and it would virtually cripple the Internet. These are people who care deeply about piracy, but this bill would create a tsunami of problems that would destroy businesses.
Message: Posted by: Slide (Jan 18, 2012 01:53PM)
Fortunately it seems cooler heads have prevailed and this thing is headed to the garbage heap.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 18, 2012 04:31PM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-18 10:46, Living Illusions wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-01-17 06:42, MobilityBundle wrote:
Ultimately, it might be more of a perception issue. It's telling, for example, that Go Daddy originally came out in support of SOPA, but reversed its course in the wake of tremendous market pressure. I wonder to what extent the Googles of the world are simply pounding their chest because they fear the negative press more than the fear the bill itself.
[/quote]

That's the definition of capitalism...we vote with our dollars. Godaddy stood to lose a lot of customers & money.
[/quote]

Sure seemed to work a lot better, and quicker, than voting "within the system."
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 18, 2012 04:35PM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-18 14:53, BillMcCloskey wrote:
Fortunately it seems cooler heads have prevailed and this thing is headed to the garbage heap.
[/quote]

For now. It'll be back in some form or another, or tacked onto some other bill.

So much for of, by and for the people.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 18, 2012 05:22PM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-18 17:35, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-01-18 14:53, BillMcCloskey wrote:
Fortunately it seems cooler heads have prevailed and this thing is headed to the garbage heap.
[/quote]

For now. It'll be back in some form or another, or tacked onto some other bill.

So much for of, by and for the people.
[/quote]

The people spoke and the bills are going down. Your conclusion makes no sense whatsoever.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 18, 2012 06:27PM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-18 18:22, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-01-18 17:35, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-01-18 14:53, BillMcCloskey wrote:
Fortunately it seems cooler heads have prevailed and this thing is headed to the garbage heap.
[/quote]

For now. It'll be back in some form or another, or tacked onto some other bill.

So much for of, by and for the people.
[/quote]

The people spoke and the bills are going down. Your conclusion makes no sense whatsoever.
[/quote]

It's one of them there, what you call, "Geumptwo" conclusions.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 18, 2012 07:20PM)
Bob, this is the, what, forth version of the(se) bill(s)? They have not died. This is nothing more than lip service. Corporate money speaks much louder than the voice of the "people."
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 18, 2012 07:31PM)
That's because the people aren't opposed to an anti-piracy bill. They are opposed, I believe, to an overly broad bill that has unintended consequences.

The bills submitted so far have not passed muster.
Message: Posted by: Bill Hilly (Jan 18, 2012 07:33PM)
Lyndel,

Very well put.

- B.H.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 18, 2012 08:41PM)
Yeah, problem is they will not be able to pass up the opportunity to control.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jan 19, 2012 06:32AM)
Here is a view of SOPA and PIPA [url=http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/adrianhon/100007115/sopa-is-the-equivalent-of-smashing-the-gutenberg-press-and-will-unite-the-internet-against-it/]from the UK:[/url]

[quote]Spurred on by big media companies, the latest effort by governments to stamp out piracy comes in the form of two bills from the US Congress: the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA).

According to these acts, if a US site (or a foreign site that has its domain name registered in the US) is found to be "committing or facilitating the commission" of copyright infringment, then, on the request of a rights holder, it is subject to seizure in a way that many scholars believe violates due process, depriving people of a fair hearing and suppressing free speech.

It gets worse. If the targeted site is not based in the US and thus cannot be seized, then the following actions must occur:

1) US sites and search engines must remove all links to the foreign site
2) US advertising services must no longer serve ads linking to the site, or display ads on the foreign site
3) US payment networks must cease all transactions between the foreign site and US customers
4) US service providers to block access to the foreign site via DNS blacklisting

In other words, a rights holder would be able to accuse a website anywhere in the world of facilitating piracy simply because a user posted a comment linking to a file sharing site, and the site would completely vanish from the internet. Anyone using any US-based search engine (which includes pretty much everyone in the UK) would not be able to find it, and anyone in the US would discover that typing in its URL would lead to nowhere.

It's a breathtaking grab for power and control, one that seeks to use the very same powers and technologies that repressive governments in the Middle East and China use to stamp out free speech – except here, it's purely for the interests of rights holders. Talk about destroying the village in order to save it. And since the UK often blindly follows the US in these matters thanks to global media companies and star-struck politicians, we need to keep a very close eye on it.

What makes this entire affair so tragic is that SOPA and PIPA wouldn't even dent piracy; encrypted torrents, VPNs, anonymous proxies, use of foreign DNS servers and the TOR network: all of these technologies are trivial for pirates to use, and extremely difficult for authorities to track.[/quote]

I agree with Bob, that the people have spoken, and this project is forestalled, but I also agree with gdw, that they'll keep trying.

W.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 19, 2012 07:59AM)
Sometimes the interests of the legislators and those in government APPEAR to line up with those of the people, but only at first glance. Just look at Obama's threats to refuse to sign the ndaa.
His reasons had nothing to do with people's concerns, but rather not wanting any limitations on his, or his office's, power.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 19, 2012 08:26AM)
You know, it seems that I am constantly hearing this from many people:

"Complain complain, boo guantanamo, complain." They don't close gitmo. "Complain, complain, boo marijuana laws, complain." Obama breaks promise to leave medical marijuana to the states. "Whine, complain, this is rediculous, boo corporate bailouts, stupid government." Government authorizes trillions in bailouts.
"Complain, boo sopa and pipa, protect our internets." Government (temporarily) shelves sopa and pipa.
"See, they listened to the people, they system works!"
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 19, 2012 09:14AM)
"Complain complain some guy is beating my mothers face in, police help! Complain"
"We're sorry, Mr. Rockeshiney has not authorized us, his private police force, to assist a plebe like you."
"Complain complain can she at least run away through Mr. Rockeshiney's private road?"
"We're sorry, Mr. Rockeshiney is a total richardwad."
"Complain complain, well Mom's dead. Oh, look! Here come the Germans 'cause there was never a US military to halt their expansion!"

Hitler point for me. No complaints.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 19, 2012 09:50AM)
Right, because there would be only one police force to appeal to, and one property owner who's property one could use to travel. Oh wait, that's EXACTLY what you have now.
As for your hitler point, good thing there were people around to impose the treaty of Versailles and cripple germany, priming them for hitler.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 19, 2012 09:53AM)
Speaking of abusive people, what I was describing is so very much like an abused spouse that refuses to leave their abuser, and turning around abd DEFENDING them at times, convinced that this is the best situation they can have, so they can't possibly consider an alternative without an abusive spouse that also provides for them.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 19, 2012 10:51AM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-19 10:53, gdw wrote:
Speaking of abusive people, what I was describing is so very much like an abused spouse that refuses to leave their abuser, and turning around abd DEFENDING them at times, convinced that this is the best situation they can have, so they can't possibly consider an alternative without an abusive spouse that also provides for them.
[/quote]

Perhaps they've considered alternatives and reached different conclusions than you have. Or perhaps you haven't really considered" alternatives as intently as you think. I never see you put the same level of scrutiny into the alternatives as you do in criticizing the existing structure (not that I'm a big fan of government). For instance, you have a complaint against being subject to any sort of dress code on pUblic property, as it restricts your freedom - no nudity, possibly no pajamas - and you object to public property. But in absence of public property, you'd have NO rights at all other than on your parcel. You couldn't leave your property in blue jeans, or at all in fact, if that was the decree of those who owned the adjacent parcels.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 19, 2012 10:58AM)
Yeah, somehow I don't see us breaking any new ground here. It's pretty much the same 'conversation' every time.
I'm going to make some fresh tea now.
Message: Posted by: Slide (Jan 19, 2012 12:30PM)
Here is pretty good video that explains the issues surrounding SOPA http://gizmo.do/wKtRpy
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 19, 2012 12:49PM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-19 11:51, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-01-19 10:53, gdw wrote:
Speaking of abusive people, what I was describing is so very much like an abused spouse that refuses to leave their abuser, and turning around abd DEFENDING them at times, convinced that this is the best situation they can have, so they can't possibly consider an alternative without an abusive spouse that also provides for them.
[/quote]

Perhaps they've considered alternatives and reached different conclusions than you have. Or perhaps you haven't really considered" alternatives as intently as you think. I never see you put the same level of scrutiny into the alternatives as you do in criticizing the existing structure (not that I'm a big fan of government). For instance, you have a complaint against being subject to any sort of dress code on pUblic property, as it restricts your freedom - no nudity, possibly no pajamas - and you object to public property. But in absence of public property, you'd have NO rights at all other than on your parcel. You couldn't leave your property in blue jeans, or at all in fact, if that was the decree of those who owned the adjacent parcels.
[/quote]

Lobo, are you suggesting you would be subject to the limitations imposed by others? How is that worse than now? The main difference is you would have a hell of a lot more options. It'd be a lot more like restaurant dress codes. Rather than an attempt at a universal one size fits all policy, which limits the options of individuals, you'd have variety and choice. Some places would certainly keep a "no short, no shoes, no service" policy (I always wondered why pants were omitted) and others might be open to full nude service. Though who would want to go to a nude restaurant is beyond me. Spill some hot soup, with no fabric to provide even a small bit of protection, no thanks.

As for your rights, you would have them all still. You'd be able to exercise a hell of a lot more of them to, given how many are currently limited.
No, you wouldn't be free to walk around nude anywhere you want, saying what ever you want, but, guess what, you can't do that now. However you probably would have MORE places that would be willing to accommodate such things.

We already know that people ARE willing to provide such places by the presence of nudist colonies, etc.
The difference would be these people would be more free to open an all nude restaurant, or clothing optional park open to the public, etc.

I have put far more scrutiny into these things than you seem to think. I didn't just jump to these ideas overnight, nor did they come from my own desires to do things I'm restricted from doing. I was a self described "liberal" before, and, even as things are now, I am pretty much free to do all the things I PERSONALLY desire to do.
That doesn't mean others should be restricted with regards to what they wish to do, provided they aren't harming or violating anyone else's person or property.
Nor does it mean I am not affected by the restrictions placed on others.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 19, 2012 01:48PM)
Interesting TED talk from last year on government and technology/Internet. Not specifically sopa/pipa, but appropriate none the less.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VM7HQ_zbdIw
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jan 20, 2012 12:09AM)
[url=http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/01/19/truth-about-sopa]The Truth about SOPA[/url] (just quoting the headline).
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 20, 2012 12:11AM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-19 13:49, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-01-19 11:51, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-01-19 10:53, gdw wrote:
Speaking of abusive people, what I was describing is so very much like an abused spouse that refuses to leave their abuser, and turning around abd DEFENDING them at times, convinced that this is the best situation they can have, so they can't possibly consider an alternative without an abusive spouse that also provides for them.
[/quote]

Perhaps they've considered alternatives and reached different conclusions than you have. Or perhaps you haven't really considered" alternatives as intently as you think. I never see you put the same level of scrutiny into the alternatives as you do in criticizing the existing structure (not that I'm a big fan of government). For instance, you have a complaint against being subject to any sort of dress code on pUblic property, as it restricts your freedom - no nudity, possibly no pajamas - and you object to public property. But in absence of public property, you'd have NO rights at all other than on your parcel. You couldn't leave your property in blue jeans, or at all in fact, if that was the decree of those who owned the adjacent parcels.
[/quote]

Lobo, are you suggesting you would be subject to the limitations imposed by others? How is that worse than now? The main difference is you would have a hell of a lot more options. It'd be a lot more like restaurant dress codes. Rather than an attempt at a universal one size fits all policy, which limits the options of individuals, you'd have variety and choice. Some places would certainly keep a "no short, no shoes, no service" policy (I always wondered why pants were omitted) and others might be open to full nude service. Though who would want to go to a nude restaurant is beyond me. Spill some hot soup, with no fabric to provide even a small bit of protection, no thanks.

As for your rights, you would have them all still. You'd be able to exercise a hell of a lot more of them to, given how many are currently limited.
No, you wouldn't be free to walk around nude anywhere you want, saying what ever you want, but, guess what, you can't do that now. However you probably would have MORE places that would be willing to accommodate such things.

We already know that people ARE willing to provide such places by the presence of nudist colonies, etc.
The difference would be these people would be more free to open an all nude restaurant, or clothing optional park open to the public, etc.

I have put far more scrutiny into these things than you seem to think. I didn't just jump to these ideas overnight, nor did they come from my own desires to do things I'm restricted from doing. I was a self described "liberal" before, and, even as things are now, I am pretty much free to do all the things I PERSONALLY desire to do.
That doesn't mean others should be restricted with regards to what they wish to do, provided they aren't harming or violating anyone else's person or property.
Nor does it mean I am not affected by the restrictions placed on others.
[/quote]

I disagree with your conclusions, but I don't really have the time or energy to put into a long post about it right now. But I did want to address the "scrutiny" aspect. Here's something you wrote in another thread recently:

"Right, because no government legislation has ever opened the door for "unintended" consequences, nor have they ever been used to go after people they were clearly not intended for, and the checks and balances ALWAY keep everything in check, and balanced."

What I meant by the comment about scrutiny is that I've never once seen you apply even the suggestion of an inquiry into the potential negative consequences of a purely (or almost purely) private model of anything. What I see is the suggestion of worst-case scenarios to every issue the government is involved in, and a blithe disregard for those worst-case scenarios as applied to the private sector.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jan 20, 2012 12:24AM)
Article about [url=http://www.hilltimes.com/policy-briefing/2012/01/16/industry-minister-touts-copyright-modernization-act-as-%E2%80%98key-pillar%E2%80%99-of/29272]Canadian legislation in the works[/url], possibly of interest to some here.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 21, 2012 09:38AM)
Greenwald on SOPA, and why I agree with gdw and Woland that this "victory" is hollow.

[quote]it nonetheless sends a very clear message when citizens celebrate a rare victory in denying the Government a power it seeks — the power to shut down websites without a trial — only for the Government to turn around the very next day and shut down one of the world’s largest and best-known sites[Megaupload]. Whether intended or not, the message is unmistakable: Congratulations, citizens, on your cute little “democracy” victory in denying us the power to shut down websites without a trial: we’re now going to shut down one of your most popular websites without a trial.

The U.S. really is a society that simply no longer believes in due process: once the defining feature of American freedom that is now scorned as some sort of fringe, radical, academic doctrine. That is not hyperbole. Supporters of both political parties endorse, or at least tolerate, all manner of government punishment without so much as the pretense of a trial, based solely on government accusation: imprisonment for life, renditions to other countries, even assassinations of their fellow citizens. Simply uttering the word Terrorist, without proving it, is sufficient. And now here is Megaupload being completely destroyed — its website shuttered, its assets seized, ongoing business rendered impossible — based solely on the unproven accusation of Piracy.

It’s true, as Sanchez observes, that “the owners of Megaupload don’t seem like particularly sympathetic characters,” but he also details that there are difficult and weighty issues that would have to be resolved to prove they engaged in criminal conduct. Megaupload obviously contains numerous infringing videos, but so does YouTube, yet both sites also entail numerous legal activities as well. As Sanchez put it: “most people, presumably, recognize that shutting down YouTube in order to disable access to those videos would not be worth the enormous cost to protected speech.” The Indictment is a classic one-side-of-the-story document; even the most mediocre lawyers can paint any picture they want when unchallenged. That’s why the government is not supposed to dole out punishments based on accusatory instruments, but only after those accusations are proved in an adversarial proceeding.

Whatever else is true, those issues should be decided upon a full trial in a court of law, not by government decree. [/quote]

More here: http://www.salon.com/2012/01/21/two_lessons_from_the_megaupload_seizure/singleton/
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (Jan 21, 2012 11:29AM)
Yeah.... So was "mobilitybundle" right or wrong? Do we understand it?


Lobo, was I correct in how it would affect YouTube?
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jan 21, 2012 11:47AM)
The US govt reached out and had them arrested and charged.
Possession being nine tenths of the law, so to speak, the point has been made.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 21, 2012 01:24PM)
Ah, but Jonathan, let's be clear and explicit what the point is: [i]We will do whatever the *** we want, "justice" system or not. We will abide by the system when it suits us and ignore it when it suits us. We will apply it to enemies when it suits us and ignore it as it applies to friends when it suits us.[/i]

cf. Manning, Bradley, and "the danger to civilians."
Message: Posted by: MobilityBundle (Jan 21, 2012 01:41PM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-21 12:29, kcg5 wrote:
Yeah.... So was "mobilitybundle" right or wrong? Do we understand it?

[/quote]

Right! Wait... what?
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (Jan 21, 2012 03:07PM)
Could it shut down YouTube? Are all of us out of our minds? The articles as well? Another case of public paranoia?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 21, 2012 06:25PM)
Nobody expects the spanish inquisition!!!!!
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 24, 2012 07:54AM)
So, what if the government forced Internet providers to keep records of a year and a half of your Internet activity/history, including your mane, address,, banking info, credit card numbers, etc, and pretty much all the government has to do to get this info is ask?

Just wondering where people would stand on such a thing?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 24, 2012 08:06AM)
My bigger concern is that they will shut off my power.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 24, 2012 09:24AM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-24 08:54, gdw wrote:
So, what if the government forced Internet providers to keep records of a year and a half of your Internet activity/history, including your mane, address,, banking info, credit card numbers, etc, and pretty much all the government has to do to get this info is ask?

Just wondering where people would stand on such a thing?
[/quote]

I would think that you would have no problem with that. After all, once you have given that information to them, it is no longer yours and they can do with it what they like. That is the same argument you have used to say that there is no "right" to possession of intangible or intellectual property. What are names, banking numbers, etc., if not intangible property?

Also, they could photocopy that information on their own paper (as you suggested in the other thread) and since that paper was theirs to begin with, they could now do whatever they please with it.

Those are the exact same arguments you have used in the other thread.

Why don't they apply here?
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 24, 2012 11:53AM)
Bob, you are absolutely right, excepted that those were NOT the conditions I agreed to when setting up my Internet provider. That's kind of the entire point of a contract Bob, to establish these conditions in the first place. Also, that's not even the issue being questioned. It's the matter of a third party, the state in this case, stepping in and mandating it.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jan 24, 2012 12:05PM)
I'd rather live under copyright law as an implicit default contract than have to actually review and sign a contract every time I bought a book. Of course, I buy a lot of books.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 24, 2012 12:24PM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-24 12:53, gdw wrote:
Bob, you are absolutely right, excepted that those were NOT the conditions I agreed to when setting up my Internet provider.
[/quote]

You actually read all of the terms & conditions?
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 24, 2012 12:36PM)
Probably not, and if those things WERE allowed for in the terms and conditions, then it's my own fault.

Any who, so how about the ACTUAL question? What would YOU think of such a law?
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Jan 24, 2012 12:40PM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-24 08:54, gdw wrote:
So, what if the government forced Internet providers to keep records of a year and a half of your Internet activity/history, including your mane, address,, banking info, credit card numbers, etc, and pretty much all the government has to do to get this info is ask?

[/quote]

My mane?

They can keep my mane as I can grow a new one 'cause I'm a lion.

And as Brad Pitt so aptly put it, there are no pacts between lions and men. :ohyes:

:goof:
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 24, 2012 01:31PM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-24 13:36, gdw wrote:
Any who, so how about the ACTUAL question? What would YOU think of such a law?
[/quote]

I'll take the 5th, as I'm sure there's a catch and I don't want my answer spun into an un-de-tangle-able mess that I have to spend the next month trying to sort out.
I reserve the right to contribute one-liners as the mood strikes.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 24, 2012 01:52PM)
I, too, would rather limit my participation to actual laws and policies rather than "what ifs."
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 24, 2012 03:46PM)
No catch, just wondering what people would think of such a law being passed in america. I ask because there is one they are pushing right now that apparently does make these demands of ISPs. At least according to several news outlets, representatives, lawyers, ect.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20084939-281/house-panel-approves-broadened-isp-snooping-bill/#ixzz1Tk3vompg
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 24, 2012 04:09PM)
I have a feeling that the proposal, as outlined in the article, would not pass constitutional muster.

The Supreme Court, conservative as they may be, just ruled this past week that police could not attach GPS monitors to cars of those suspected of criminal activity without court approval. I think the same right to privacy rationale would prevail in a case brought challenging the proposed legislation you cited.

Good thoughts,

Bob
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 24, 2012 04:24PM)
Actually that is not quite what they ruled. They said it constitutes a search, but would not say if it was reasonable or not.

http://volokh.com/2012/01/23/what-jones-does-not-hold/

They also said that it depends on how long they are tracking you for. However they would not say at what point it is long enough to require a warrant.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/01/scotus-gps-ruling/
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 24, 2012 04:30PM)
Instead of the 4th, how about the 5th?

Looks like they may be able to compel you to decrypt your computer for them.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57364330-281/judge-americans-can-be-forced-to-decrypt-their-laptops/
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jan 24, 2012 08:25PM)
What else did you expect when using something Al Gore invented?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jan 24, 2012 10:18PM)
The correct answer is, they will do whatever they like, law or no law, and they will (perhaps) justify it later.
They can murder you without the slightest accountability, you really think that any law is going to stop them from getting your personal info from an ISP? Please, we're all grown-ups here, aren't we?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 24, 2012 10:27PM)
[quote]
On 2012-01-24 21:25, tommy wrote:
What else did you expect when using something Al Gore invented?
[/quote]

In case you didn't know, that tired meme about Al Gore claiming to have invented the Internet isn't exactly true. In fact, when one looks at what he said IN CONTEXT, the claim is clearly false.

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

But don't let facts get in the way.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 27, 2012 04:15PM)
Though sopa and pipa are, for the moment, old news now, I thought I would post this, as it is an interesting read, at least for the contextual history of hollywood.

http://static.thepiratebay.org/legal/sopa.txt

Live long the trash pipe.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Jan 27, 2012 04:28PM)
Meanwhile, in Poland:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/2012/01/27/amid-acta-outcy-politicians-don-anonymous-guy-fawkes-masks/
Message: Posted by: critter (Jan 27, 2012 04:34PM)
But how many Guy Fawkeses does it take to screw in a lightbulb?