Based on your question you clearly don't understand what SOPA is about. Yes, Feds should try to stop piracy. Piracy is wrong. But so is SOPA/PIPA. SOPA has nothing to do with stopping piracy. It has everything to do with trying to control user-generated content on the internet.

Because SOPA allows anyone to lobby a complaint against the content host (youtube, etc.) the MPAA or RIAA or any other copyright "holder" can take down the content.

There is no appeals process. The content is just taken down. This puts massive stress on companies like youtube. It definitely prevents future user-generated companies to form. It prevents people who are legitimate content creates from getting their work out. The DMCA of 1998 is clearly shown that the MPAA and RIAA are not above lobbing false claims to remove content that DON'T LIKE. We are America. We are not China.

There is no question that pirating is wrong and hurts the entertainment industry, but the bills being created - SOPA and PIPA - will only make things worse.

SOPA allows the government to block a website from search websites (like Google), block them from receiving money (like through Paypal), and can even seizes that site's URL, all without any approval from a judge or court before doing so. That may work against sites that promote piracy, but what's keeping someone from abusing that power and using it on innocent websites? Sites that promote a liberal view, or expose corruption? What's to keep a company from using this power on their competitor out of spite?

The government needs to come up with better solutions - these bills are not it!

Don't be China! I don't want to go to jail for having an opinion.

SOPA/PIPA threatens our right to information, and thus the freedom of the press. Shouldn't this be a no-brainer for a news corporation?

"Our liberty depends on freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost." - Thomas Jefferson

Yes, but how they're going about it now is all wrong! One of the current bills before Congress makes singing a copyrighted song on youtube a felony. A felony! Even if you aren't making any money on it - it's still considered a crime just for allowing people to view it. You'd have a criminal record just for singing a song you liked! It's terrible.

I agree with the previous comment. This question seems either badly worded or sensationalist. We already have laws and procedures in place to persecute online piracy. That is not the problem.

We have in the past made a distinction between legal and illegal copying - largely in whether you are sharing with your friends (or for educational purposes) versus whether you're selling high quality copies.

SOPA/PIPA would remove that distinguishing line, making it always illegal to copy or share any piece of copyrighted content.

This may seem fair until you consider how much the internet has liberated the average user - we've moved from consumers to producers, remixers and sharers. We use these capabilities to learn and teach, to create art that improves the world, to get our news, and to be more than zombies who simply consume.

SOPA/PIPA will hurt consumers and businesses, will make us all guilty until proven innocent, and will halt the amazing progress that the internet has allowed us to achieve.

At a high level, I believe our problem is that our capitalist system and our technological capabilities are at odds - I don't believe the solution is policing the populace, but either looking for new ways to make money (Spotify and Hulu are great examples) or significantly altering the system so that when an industry is no longer profitable, the millions who lose their jobs aren't just dead weight.

SOPA/PIPA is a crutch created out of fear. I know we're better than this. Perhaps we should set up a website that allows anyone to contribute ideas to the conversation, and see just how valuable collective intelligence is.

The internet is too valuable for bureaucrats to tinker with. Not only is SOPA clearly wrong (no due process, makes the net more vulnerable, wouldn't actually stop pirating), it's a crack in the door for government to step in and attempt greater control of the net.

SOPA is a useless waste of legislation and effort. Any content that would be censored will just start being hosted on boxes in other countries and can still be accessed from anywhere. All it will do is hurt American hosting businesses and fuck the economy more. You can't censor the internet, because it doesn't belong to anyone. Stupid politicians ... lol

SOPA is a useless waste of legislation and effort. Any content that would be censored will just start being hosted on boxes in other countries and can still be accessed from anywhere. All it will do is hurt American hosting businesses and screw the economy more. You can't censor the internet, because it doesn't belong to anyone. Stupid politicians ... lol

SOPA and PIPA are a huge threat to a free and open exchange of information that is responsible for so many social and technological breakthroughs in our modern world. This legislation is a foul attempt from a billion-dollar industry to stifle their competition at the expense of all of us.

ITS NOT A CRACKDOWN ON INTERNET PIRACY ITS A CRACKDOWN ON YOUR FREEDOM WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU

the government hates things like OWS, piracy is just an excuse, this is just another patriot act for the government to swindle freedoms away from it's undereducated citizens, undereducated from the school systems they underfund.

they can take down ANY WEBPAGE THEY WANT under this fascist bill

AMERICA IS THE LAND OF THE FREE BUT NOT SO MUCH THE HOME OF THE BRAVE ANYMORE, at least not brave enough to let its citizens have freedom of speech.

remember all that crap you guys on RFL talked about IRAN and CHINA censoring internet, WELL NOW YOURE PRAISING CONGRESS FOR PROPOSING A BILL FOR INTERNET CENSORSHIP IN THE US

ls;dkaghjlisdhgkl;sdhgaklghgkl;hsdfklghafsdkgjhkdfljaghfajkdghk;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?nomobile=1&v=yDX8Lyl16Qs

Well I'm not expert on this, but if it's designed to help stop foreign pirates, how will this help by targeting americans? Also, it's just too general and broad, such as if a site just has a comment box for someone to fill in, that is unregulated and it allows for the very potential of piracy and can be subjected to being shut down. Then when they shut it down, there is no vote or appeal to have your site re-established, and that decision is left to the few who are sooooooo disconnected from the reality of the internet and what piracy is that they shouldn't be given that decision making power.

An action being wrong does not, by virtue, make any solution poised to prevent that action right. Online piracy is illegal. So is jaywalking. But I think we can all agree that building 7-foot fences on the site of every sidewalk to "crack down" on jaywalking would be ridiculous.

Yet in essence, both SOPA and PIPA are both as untenable and unrealistic as my proposed jaywalking fence. A few pirates may be diverted, but at what cost? Google being forced to remove websites from it's search engine at the RIAA's discretion? A small business website being shut down by the attorney general without due process? The language in SOPA was clearly written by people who do not understand how information is transferred throughout the internet, and the vague perimeters leave too much open for potential abuse, and the potential to harm online businesses of all sizes. Not to mention the potential for censorship of ideas that disagree with government agencies. As a poster mentioned above, you as a news site should understand the value of freely shared information.

If you want to support a crack down on piracy, that's all well and good. But this proposed solution is sloppy and lazy. A better one should be sought after.

Great posts! I second Iris on her brilliant critique and analysis. Thanks Iris, you saved me a lot of time.

Finally, after two years, we now have a website moderator worthy of the title. Excellent and timely questions.

Bravo! Keep up the good work.

Hooray! for RNN. Good find, Richard.
Deliver our responses to Washington, just like the old days when RNN had both the juice and the cutting edge clout and moxey of true investigative reporting to be a force that had to be considered and reckoned with.

██ ████████ ██████ ██████████ ██ ████ ██ ████ ██████████ ██. ███ ███

To paraphrase Frank Zappa "In this context, SOPA and PiPA are the equivalent of treating dandruff by decapitation."

Yes, internet piracy is bad, but these bills would be much worse for the internet. These bills could put people in jail for putting videos on Youtube and get search engines like Google and Yahoo in trouble because they have a link to a site that infringes copyrights. These bills need to be completely revised or just killed all together. I can see no way that these bills would be good for the internet.

Gotta love those job creators!

Electronics assemblers in China get the equivalent of $0.31 an hour. Try to form a union and you go to prison for 12 years. Nets are installed around all the buildings to thwart expensive worker suicides. And after all this, the cost of the product is reduced just 23%.

Every time an apologist for unregulated capitalism says Americans can't expect to have jobs because we're not competitive, he is saying we have to work for $0.30. That, of course, means no tax base, so no military, no Social Security, no Medicare, no tiniest shred of hope for anything outside the sweatshop. That some Americans push so hard for this dismal hell for you and me shows what the profits these lobbyists for the wealthy get can do to them: turn them into betrayers of fellow Americans for a dishonest buck. This shows the potential that unregulated capitalism has for corrupting and destroying.

It's quite possible that the internet legislation was written the way it was as a strong first step to kill internet neutrality. And the purpose of that is, of course, greater efficiency (translation: greater profit) for big business. Without strong and publicly visible control of business, money WILL corrupt everything and everybody, in every facet of our lives.

(All new posters, thank you and stay with us.)

The internet works because of free collaboration and regulation by the internet community itself. Corporations look for opportunities to profit off of our freedoms and use the very laws meant to protect us to make more money. Government over regulation tends to limit innovation and destroy our freedoms.

In 1991 Linus Torvalds created a computer operating system called Linux. He made it free to the community to use, patch and upgrade. The only government involvement was the original copyright law that insisted if something starts out as free it remains free and no company or individual can own it. Linus and a small team owned the right to approve patches and changes. The only regulations are by the community. It is secure because the community overseas it. It works because we all benefit from a free community of collaboration and effort. There were no big government regulations or Corporate take overs. Today, Linux is in digital TV's, cellphones and desktops. It supports the most drivers and hardware and competes with Microsoft.

SOPA is an excuse to over regulation our freedoms. Who benefits from it and who does it protect? If it is not us, the Law biding Citizen's, then it is wrong.

SOPA is the 1% trying to keep down the rest of us. I know a lot of professional musicians, writers, and filmmakers, but NONE of them support these bills. The RIAA and MPAA aren't representing their interests, because independent media are a threat in the new landscape where consumers aren't constricted to what they can find at the local Sam Goodie or on the local radio, and I'm NOT talking about piracy. This guy says it pretty well.

Sorry, THIS clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j52a608OMVw&feature=g-all-u&context=G2a7ca21FAAAAAAAAAAA

To Caspian continued from Broken Thread:

Romney never said anything about "building up forces around the world." MG.
"I know what BF meant and I did hear Romney saying that." - Caspian

Then Caspian, please provide the transcripts of exactly what Romney said as I did and I will recant my point.

Frankly otherwise, I can't accept what you THINK you may have heard as fact.

To Bill continued from Broken Thread:

DUH! When forces are to be built up, of course they would also be built up where they are stationed around the world. Now, whose imposing their own beliefs? - Bill F

DUH! That's why I said "WE" impose our own beliefs" and not "You".

BUT, YOU stated Romney SAID something he did not and that is not imposing ones belief that is misquoting. BUILDING OUR FORCES AROUND THE WORLD is NOT what Romney said. A country CAN have a STRONG military where nobody would ever think of attacking us because they know if they did they would be destroyed. But having forces "BUILT TO A POINT" around the world, is simply not the same thing. It gives the impression that Romney wants to spread our troops all over the world to police the world. Is that what he meant? That's not what he said. I only know what he said:

Romney
"We need a strong military -- so strong no one in the world would ever think of testing it."

Bill F
"What Romney said yesterday in the debate rings very true. We need to build our forces around the world to a point that nobody would dare test them."

Clinton jailed the patsys and the masterminds were free to plan 9/11. BF

===============

Clinton wanted to implement the patriot act to wiretap and the Republicans voted against it.

Proof:

Clinton PDD 63
http://tinyurl.com/cvuom

For Immediate Release May 22, 1998 FACT SHEET PROTECTING AMERICA'S
CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURES: PDD 63
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/pdd-63.htm

Clinton PDD 62
http://tinyurl.com/bze57

COMBATING TERRORISM: PRESIDENTIAL DECISION DIRECTIVE 62
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ciao/62factsheet.htm

Congressional Record: April 18, 1996 (House) - Pages H3605-H3618 Government Printing Office's Online Records: DOCID:cr18ap96-43

Conference Report on s. 735, Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
Dan Burton (R-Ind): If the Government of the United States can through, quote-unquote, good faith tap our phones and intrude into our lives, they violate our constitutional liberties, and that is something that we should not tolerate, and that is in section 305 and section 307. The FBI can gain access to individual phone billing records without a subpoena or a court order. Once again I believe that infringes upon our constitutional rights and liberties, and while we are trying to deal with terrorism, and we should, we should not violate our constitutional rights and liberties, and I believe this bill in its present form does. And that is why I think the Barr amendment is absolutely essential if we are going to pass something that will really deal with terrorism crime, but protect the liberties that we fought so hard for in the Revolutionary War.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=1996_record&docid=cr13mr96-94

================

TERRORISM PREVENTION ACT--CONFERENCE REPORT
http://tinyurl.com/2lj3t8

Congressional Record: April 17, 1996 (Senate) - Pages S3454-S3478 DOCID:cr17ap96-153

Terrorism prevention Act--Conference Report

Orrin Hatch: Mr. President, again, in the real world, in the case of the Unabomber or a terrorist where there is a real threat or an immediate concern, you do not need this provision to get an emergency wiretap. All the Senator's motion does is expand the number of crimes that would trigger the wiretap statute. This amendment was offered during the Senate debate. It was defeated. It was not a part of the Senate bill. It was not a part of the House bill. It is not a part of our conference report, and rightly so. I oppose this provision that could expand emergency wiretap authority to permit the Government to begin a wiretap prior to obtaining court approval in a greater range of cases than the law presently allows. I personally find this proposal troubling. I am concerned that this provision, if enacted, would unnecessarily broaden emergency wiretap authority. Under current law, such authority exists when life is in danger, when the national security is threatened, or when an organized crime conspiracy is involved. In the real world, we do not need this amendment to get emergency wiretap authority, and that is a fact.
Let me also say that this authority is constrained by a requirement that surveillance be approved by the Court within 48 hours, but that authority already exists in those areas I have addressed.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=1996_record&docid=cr17ap96-153

Then Caspian, please provide the transcripts of exactly what Romney said as I did and I will recant my point.MG

===========
Romney's point was to make Americans believe that with the best and largest military then no other country would dare to attack us.

We already have the best and largest military and we still had 9/11/01.

Net Neutrality (Part 1/2)
http://tinyurl.com/6sdetec
http://www.youtube.com/AbbyMediaRoots#p/u/24/qFVR47XSZ28

Net Neutrality (Part 2/2)
http://tinyurl.com/7x7r8gj
http://www.youtube.com/AbbyMediaRoots#p/u/25/2Xnj2eMBUHE

"Romney's point was to make Americans believe that with the best and largest military then no other country would dare to attack us. We already have the best and largest military and we still had 9/11/01." -Caspian

Well technically no other COUNTRY has attacked us since Japan. My argument had less to do with backing Romney's statement and much more to do with mis-quoting what he said.

My argument had less to do with backing Romney's statement and much more to do with mis-quoting what he said. MG.

============

Mike this comes from Romney's website and IMO BF had it right.

BTW even liberals want a strong military.

=========

Our country today faces a bewildering array of threats and opportunities. As president, Mitt Romney will safeguard America and secure our country’s interests and most cherished ideals. The unifying thread of his national security strategy is American strength. When America is strong, the world is safer. It is only American power—conceived in the broadest terms—that can provide the foundation for an international system that ensures the security and prosperity of the United States and our friends and allies.

A Romney foreign policy will proceed with clarity and resolve. Our friends and allies will not have doubts about where we stand and what we will do to safeguard our interests and theirs. Neither will our rivals, competitors, and adversaries. The best ally world peace has ever known is a strong America. The “last best hope of earth” was what Abraham Lincoln called our country. Mitt Romney believes in fulfilling the promise of Lincoln’s words and will defend America abroad in word and in deed.

"Mike this comes from Romney's website and IMO BF had it right." - Caspian

Caspian, Why are you and Bill F always sticking together? Like two pea's in the same pod. Hmmm I wonder if you are the same person? ...lol just kidding.

I think the problem may lie in the way I understood Bill's statement. If he wrote it the way I thought he did, quoting Romney verbatim, then it would be impossible for what Bill wrote to be accurate. I understood it this way:

Bill F- What Romney SAID yesterday in the debate rings very true:

Romney - "We need to build our forces around the world to a point that nobody would dare test them."

But of course the facts show Romney did not actually SAY anything about "building forces around the world" in that debate. He ONLY SAID, "strong military -- so strong no one in the world would ever think of testing it" So how Romney SAID it, was my point, how he MEANT it, is your point.

Sadly, I think the horse is dead. Should we keep beating it?

Sadly, I think the horse is dead. Should we keep beating it?
MG.

============

LOL, We all have been beating a dead horse for many years now.

Ecclesiastes 1:9

9 What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.