Internet Censorship Bill

Inspired by another thread...

So just take a look at this. Apparently they're getting serious about internet censorship now. If this thing makes it through later, the result could possibly be worse than the hypothetical loss of net neutrality. Who knows what sites could end up being taken down?

Probably this one.

So... you guys think it might get passed some day?

No. It already got shut down this year, and it won't be until late next year that it gets reinstated, if ever.

As early as 1993, John Gilmore observed that "the Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it."

At the moment this is out of most people's view / minds. If it reaches a tipping point however, it will suddenly take hold like a wildfire. Networks like freenet and tor would become commonplace, and SSL connections could become the norm, along with VPN connections.

A lot can happen in a year.

Its not going to happen.

How would they shut down sites offshore? If they can't, wouldn't most American's who have websites just make the switch?

If they force ISPs to block domain's on their DNS, couldn't people just use different DNS's too? I don't really get how you could censor something like the internet.

How would they shut down sites offshore? If they can't, wouldn't most American's who have websites just make the switch?

If they force ISPs to block domain's on their DNS, couldn't people just use different DNS's too? I don't really get how you could censor something like the internet.

China's been doing it for years. I have a chinese friend who genuinely didn't know about the tianamen square massacre until I told him about it.

Its not going to happen.

Its not going to happen.

And thank fuck for that.

Hey guys, it's back again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDX8Lyl16Qs&feature=player_embedded

From Anon News:
http://t.co/o1hoxWbH
More info:
https://wfc2.wiredforchange.com/o/9042/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=8173
http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/law-professors-join-critics-of-proposed-antipiracy-bill-discussed-at-house-hearing/34344

Petition: (SIGN ALL OF THEM FOR THE GREATER GOOD!)
http://americancensorship.org/
http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-the-internet-control-bill-now
http://t.co/TYYG5rEC
http://www.avaaz.org/en/save_the_internet/?tta <this one is Globally

Google, Yahoo!, Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, Zynga, eBay, AOL and #Mozilla sent a #SOPA letter to congress. Read here: http://mzl.la/rtd5o1

Its not going to happen.

I'm noticing a trend here.

Have you guys seen the latest reports and hearings about SOPA? It's getting a lot of support inside the senate itself 8|;;;
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111116/00035716786/look-testimony-given-todays-sopa-lovefest-congressional-hearings-with-surprise-mastercard.shtml

It's going to happen.

Europe committed to enforcing net neutrality yesterday

It's not going to happen.

So this shit goes down in the House tomorrow. COICA passed the house but didn't it get fucked over by the senate? Even so I read that Obama said he would veto it...

But basically MPAA and RIAA need to die.

*sigh*

I could be wrong, but I don't think the constituents of these congresspeople asked for this bill. This appears to me to be the work of lobbyists.

The largest issue with the US medical system's cost is tort law. Following that example, is it too far fetched to say that exposing companies to extra liability (which unless I'm mistaken, HR 3261 would do) will similarly hurt the commercial sector? Imagine needing buyer's insurance just to be able to make purchases on the 'net... I really struggle with the idea that there are those who see SOPA as a good thing. I guess we'll find out how many congresspeople do today.

I watched some of the debate, they're all bought out. None of the SOPA-allied congressmen have any idea what it's about. In fact one of them even stated "We've all been hurt by piracy."
Fucking lobbyists.

I know, right. It's ridiculous.

The current middle-aged white male incumbents need to back the fuck up from office asap, and lobbyists need to go away forever. But hell, politicians are supposed to represent our best interests; when did we ever ask them to replace civil liberties with corporate liberties?

It's a crooked republic they run.

when did we ever ask them to replace civil liberties with corporate liberties?

When we elected them, and sat idly.

My favorite presidential candidate is an elderly white male. ;o

The current middle-aged white male incumbents need to back the fuck up from office asap, and lobbyists need to go away forever. But hell, politicians are supposed to represent our best interests; when did we ever ask them to replace civil liberties with corporate liberties?

Corporate liberties aren't the problem, corporate and government tyranny is.

Also Harry Burns stop being racist and ageist you stupid fuck.

Hm. Well. If the rich white smug shoe fits, wear it.

I think one of the foundation-level problems we have in the United States is this assumption we cling to that pure capitalism is the way to go. I reject pure capitalism in the same way I reject any pure system, be it political, religious or economic- the theory is nice, but it doesn't work.

Capitalism is supposed to enrich the economy by providing competition, the principle that those who provide the best value will suceed, and maybe for a time in a successful company's life, it does. But eventually as the company gets big, it starts neglecting value for the consumer in favor of value for the shareholder. It's no secret, just read the corporate policy for any global company and the consumer is almost totally ignored while the shareholder is constantly mentioned as the top priority.

As these companies make more money and aquisitions, they run into legal walls that stand between them and their ambitions. Solution: pay off a congressman or two or an entire comittee to enact legislation to remove those obstacles. If you pay your lawmakers enough, you end up essentially dictating American law.

In the most recent economic crisis, all the US needed to do was regulate those insurance companies and banks; there was no regulation and when everything went belly up the entire global economy suffered. So much for pure, unregulated capitalism.

This internet bill would essentially de-regulate the shutdown of whatever commercial websites the government saw fit, and while bigger companies would hardly feel the effects of a temporary shutdown, for the one dude in his basement trying to get his business off the ground it's a death sentence. It is in this way that big corp is pulling its latest stunt to stay big and bulletproof against their biggest threat- the little guys who exist to benefit their consumers.

We don't live in a capitalist society. You can't say, "Capitalism doesn't work! Just look at the corporations in our non-capitalist society!" The corporations can lobby to the government and the government, feeling unrestrained in power, does as they ask. The government will work against the natural flow of the market and bail out corporations when they fail. The government will put money into things like paying for people to go to college, but since the government has to pay for it, tuition goes up, more people go to college, the value of college goes down and the only people to benefit in the long run are the schools. These are just a couple examples. We don't have a capitalist system, we have a combination of corporatism and socialism, both a result of big, unrestrained government. You don't know what real capitalism is.

The economic crisis wasn't caused by under-regulation. It all started with the burst of the housing bubble. And to explain the housing bubble, here's a man who warned of the housing bubble burst and the economic collapse years before it happened:

Spoiler for:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99ed8reuX5I" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99ed8reuX5I</a>

I see some flaws in your logic, Irock. Firstly, capitalism is rather broadly defined, but has some defining characterisitcs like private ownership of the means of production, production of goods and services for profit, the accumulation of capital, competitive markets and wage labor. The definitions of some of these aspects are defined by a country's politics, not its economic structure. In a capitalist country, the government does not interfere in firms' choice of product or service nor in the decision of individuals to choose where they work. I'd say that's pretty close if not identical to what we have in America.

The reason the government bails out big corp when they fail is so the nation's GDP doesn't nose dive and make goods and services unavailable, thus lowering the US credit rating and negatively affecting our global purchasing and borrowing power.

I contend that the economic crisis was caused by de-regulation. If it wasn't, how do explain the collapse of mortgage lenders insuring themselves against their own loans when they knew they'd fail? It had a lot to do with the Glass-Stegall act being repealed. There we have a de-regulation paving the way for the circumstances that caused the credit crunch- the worst economic crisis to hit the US since the Great Depression- all because banks and lenders saw an opportunity to gain more capital, a core tenet of capitalism.

I do agree that it was predictable, and therefore preventable, but the fact that the government took no action to do so is consistent with capitalist economics: the theory that if left alone, capitalist systems will work themselves out. As we saw, this was not done in the most recent crisis because that theory is incorrect, because the entire nation was on the verge of an economic collapse. This tells us that capitalism as we have it in the US is flawed, and socialist measures were taken to protect a capitalist system. Those measures worked- but despite the nature of those measures, they were taken to support capitalism, and do not represent the bulk of US economic policy.

If we had a mix of corporatism and socialism, then why do we not see more government involvement in career choice, a tenet of both systems, or public ownership of means of production, a tenet of socialism? Socialist economics are about the accumulation and distribution of resources, while what we have in America is simple accumulation, with more capital turning into the acquisition of more capital.  If I may throw your words back at you, you don't know what socialism is.

We do have a big government, and I too would like to see it reduced. I could live with its size as long as I was confident that it existed for my benefit, which I do not beleive it does. When you say it does as it pleases, you will hear no argument from me, but you make my point for me. Corporations lobby, and they are heard. That has nothing to do with capitalism or socialism, that's just corruption.

When I say capitalism, I mean free markets.

Bailouts don't help us in the long run. Inflation, public debt and malinvestment negatively affect the value of the dollar and our credit rating.  Debt needs to be liquidated and malinvestmen needs to end, and the government's only delaying and raising the intensity of an inevitable crisis.

In a true free market, the Glass-Stegall act wouldn't have a reason to exist, considering we wouldn't have government insurance programs and taxpayers wouldn't be the ones at risk for banks making bad decisions. There would also be less incentive to take major risks without safety nets. Additionally, banks were forced to take risks by making unsafe housing loans, which caused the whole bubble in the first place.

The government is taking action all the time to correct problems they created, which in turn creates more problems. Where have you been?

Examples of corporatism: bailouts, subsidies, health care mandates, lobbying

Examples of socialism: government student loans, medicare, medicaid, unemployment benefits

Corporations lobby to unfairly get ahead, but that doesn't mean the government should do what they say. That's not what a free market is, and if the government would follow a constitutional free-market philosophy like they're supposed to, we wouldn't have most of these problems.

If you mean free markets, say free markets. You can't make a point unless you use the proper terms to make your case. Otherwise it sounds like you're backpedaling.

I never said bailouts were good. In fact, I said the opposite; they are performed to shore up a failing system. It was bad investing by big corporations (who obstensibly should know better) that was the catalyst for the crash, and if we had a free market those companies would have died, serving as an example to the rest of the business community- but Uncle Sam came in and saved many of them, providing a HUGE precident for the largest companies to take risks of the nature that caused the crash. If the Glass-Stegall act had been in place, these circumstances wouldn't have existed in the first place, free market or otherwise.

Saying that banks were forced to take risks is ridiculous. No hand forced any lender to make bad loans, that was a decision made by the underwriters. They began following the trend of hedging their bets by insuring loans they KNEW would default to make more money. The government stepped in when all the loans defauted in rapid sequence and the insurers for the lenders went broke, also making broke the lenders unable to recoup their losses. Of course the government is constantly fixing mistakes it makes, the capitalist system is supports is broken! Where have YOU been?

I've been working. I support a middle class family of five, and even with a union behind me I'm constantly trying to protect my job, my wages and my earned benefits from some lawmaker who wants to take what little (comparatively) I have and give it to some rich schmuck. That is not what I want my government to be doing. Do you work to support yourself? Do you pay for your own healthcare or education? If you do, then don't tell me you want the government to nto have those programs available, socialist or not. If you don't, please stop telling me what the government should do for its economic policies regarding those things.

On that note, you played the Constitution card.

Article 1, Section 8
 
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.

The part about debts shows the government has responsibility to maintain a secure financial staus for the country, which means it ought to legislate to keep the corporations from effing things up like they have lately. That way it can do the next part, which includes things like those darned socialist concepts of educational grants, and health care for the elderly and unable to work. Since the constitution was written before the advent of Marxist philosohpy, I can only conclude that these are not socialist principles.

I was unable to find any reference to a free market philosophy in the Constitution. It enables a free market by omission of powers to regulate private property, but neither requires nor even mentions a free market system.

All that being said, I think we're losing sight of what's important to the discussion, something we DO agree on. That is, as you said,

Corporations lobby to unfairly get ahead, but that doesn't mean the government should do what they say.

See, we could be running mates!
 

Ignorant words escaped, I apologize. You realize by "replacing cilvil liberties..." I specifically meant something like SOPA that favors corporation instead of the general public. But it was stupid on my part because it can hurt online business too.

Lobbying isn't actually always bad. "Corporations lobby to unfairly get ahead, but that doesn't mean the government should do what they say." I too agree with that. But at the same time, it's clear many of our incumbents are talking with their pockets full of corporate financial backing. (OpenSecrets.org has some pretty interesting data.) At the very same time it doesn't start and end with the politician; corporate liaisons should have a very finite ability to lobby. Our whole culture spins around money, so it's unlikely any of that will change if incumbents are still being backed by large pockets indifferent to the general public.

I didn't read any of the posts being ageist and racist, which I take offense to, inevitably being a middle-aged average-height white male myself. Self-deprecatory comments are okay sometimes!

They indeed were forced to make bad loans to people that were bad credit risks through the community reinvestment act. Additionally, the federal reserve kept mortgage interest rates artificially low, which was also a major contributor.

You're grossly misinterpreting Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution.

If you think "to pay the debts" means anything other than using the money they collect for paying public debts, you're way off. I've never heard ANYONE argue what you just argued.

Now let's look at the general welfare part:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.

The wording here is important. One of the key words here is 'general'. 'General' means it applies to the whole. Welfare such as medicare and education grants are targeted, as opposed to general.

Even more importantly, that part of Article 1, Section 8 specifically states who or what "general welfare" applies to. It says, "and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States". That means it applies to the United States. You can interpret "United States" two ways. It could mean the general welfare of the federal government or the general welfare of the states themselves. I'm not entirely sure which it is, but it's certainly not "the people" by any stretch of the imagination. The constitution likes to specifically mention what something applies to, and it always refers to the people as "the people".

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

et cetera

If the general welfare clause were intended to give the federal government the power to do and run anything in the name of welfare, it wouldn't be written that way, and powers wouldn't be specifically enumerated in the constitution. Furthermore, it would be uncharacteristic for the founders to even agree to such a vague enabler of national government power.

This assembly does further disavow and declare to be most false and unfounded, the doctrine that the compact, in authorizing its federal branch to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States, has given them thereby a power to do whatever they may think, or pretend, would promote the general welfare, which construction would make that, of itself, a complete government, without limitation of powers; but that the plain sense and obvious meaning were, that they might levy the taxes necessary to provide for the general welfare, by the various acts of power therein specified and delegated to them, and by no others.

With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”

If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress…. Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.

This thread should be split...

SOPA hearing is apparently rescheduled to the 21st and not January. Now that's rather slimy.

Agreed. What is this move-up going to mean for the vote? *shiver*

Irock, I'm glad you care so much about your country. I disagree with you almost entireley on wat is referring to what; while you make some great arguments, you still haven't proven to me that the government shouldn't be used as a tool to improve the lives of those under its law. I gave out some boxes of food today to those who could not afford it. These kids are going to have a Christmas dinner where ordinarily there would be none, and the interpretation of government you present has no room for these things. I simply refuse to accept that this is what our founders wanted, or that this is how things ought to be.

And if you've never heard the argument I presented, as a progressive I'll take that as a compliment. Thank you. +rep

Agreed. What is this move-up going to mean for the vote? *shiver*

Irock, I'm glad you care so much about your country. I disagree with you almost entireley on wat is referring to what; while you make some great arguments, you still haven't proven to me that the government shouldn't be used as a tool to improve the lives of those under its law. I gave out some boxes of food today to those who could not afford it. These kids are going to have a Christmas dinner where ordinarily there would be none, and the interpretation of government you present has no room for these things. I simply refuse to accept that this is what our founders wanted, or that this is how things ought to be.

I'm not sure how you can believe that "general" means "targeted" and "United States" means "the people" when the people are always referred to as "the people" everywhere else in the document. I even provided a Thomas Jefferson and James Madison quotes that say that's not what the clause means.

The tenth amendment allows state governments and the people to do what's not delegated to the United States government, and not forbidden to the states. Whether you gave out food working for your local government or voluntarily on your own, it's not forbidden by the constitution. I recommend actually studying what our founding fathers believed in and then carefully reading the document that's supposed to define the role of the US government.

Should we run our country on what 200 years dead people think, or what is correct for the country?   You seem to dodge that whenever it comes up. Besides, the US is nothing approaching the limited government they envisioned any longer. I can't help but think that you haven't thought about this as deeply as you could.

Should we run our country on what 200 years dead people think, or what is correct for the country?

Both. We do neither.

Now THAT I can agree with.

Check out this article, actually on topic!

Hmmm. Thoughts?

It uh, actually got delayed back to January again before you posted that.

Have any of you been signing petitions, or emailing representatives? If not, I suggest you do that. Talking about it is fine, but it takes 2 seconds to click a few links and actually have your opinion be represented.

I signed two petitions. When it pops up again I'll call my representative.

Have any of you been signing petitions, or emailing representatives? If not, I suggest you do that. Talking about it is fine, but it takes 2 seconds to click a few links and actually have your opinion be represented.

This, also call, or email. In my experience you're heard more if you call or email. Petitions get overlooked a lot, but if your representative is getting tons of emails/calls on a particular subject, then they pay closer attention.

I've been working as part of something that we shall not mention here to have this stopped. I don't even live in your country and I'm doing everything I can to stop this happening.

Have any of you been signing petitions, or emailing representatives? If not, I suggest you do that. Talking about it is fine, but it takes 2 seconds to click a few links and actually have your opinion be represented.

Done!

This, also call, or email. In my experience you're heard more if you call or email. Petitions get overlooked a lot, but if your representative is getting tons of emails/calls on a particular subject, then they pay closer attention.

And done! As far as my computer at work not getting the latest news, well, I looked... Thanks for the correction!

Just got this in an email:

"""Happy Holidays -- we have some great news to share.

We've just won two huge battles in the fight against Internet censorship -- everything you are doing is working!  First off, the House of Representatives failed to move SOPA out of committee!  Why? Because their offices got swamped with phone calls and overwhelmed by the snowballing opposition.  Thank you for helping make that happen.

Second, in response to the boycott of GoDaddy, the web hosting company just made a public announcement that it's dropping its support of SOPA.  Amazing what you have made happen."""

That is awesome, but don't forget about PIPA. This one is potentially more dangerous, so keep those phone calls and emails coming.

Rock the fuck on.

It is good to see that our voice is being heard! It gives me hope for our country.

Right, who knows what's going on unannounced

IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!

It wouldn't have before, but this time, it is very possible that it could happen. Seriously, keep signing petitions and phoning reps.

I'm in denial. I'm going to be difficult. I am going to provide reasoning that holds no logic whatsoever. But the government is not going to limit our freedom of speech throughout the internet anymore, mark my words. I will do whatever I can to stop the government from becoming all-powerful, which is exactly what would happen here. Hell, it's not even my government. I'm in Canada.

The reason that it could happen this time is because it is a bill being pushed by people who have no idea what they're talking about. The people who are pushing this only see one small part of it, and that is the overly simple "piracy = lost profits". They aren't seeing that nearly every current website could potentially be shut down, that all user-created content could be dropped from the web, that huge sites such as YouTube and facebook could be gone forever. They don't understand what they're playing with, and that is why it is up to us, the people who use the internet on a daily basis, to show them why this is a horrible idea.

Edit: Also, it isn't the government that is trying to become "all-powerful" in this situation, really. It is mostly corporations.

I am going to provide reasoning that holds no logic whatsoever.

Anyway, you're absolutely right. I'll keep signing.

We don't live in a capitalist society.

:I

We don't live in a capitalist society.

:I

I'm not sure how you could sincerely call it capitalism knowing how much the government controls and influences the market.

It is totally capitalist, but the people who have capitalized in the past leave legacies that influence government in order to stay profitable. This, in turn, stops new businesses, corporations, and visionaries from getting far enough ahead to become sustainable.

It is totally capitalist, but the people who have capitalized in the past leave legacies that influence government in order to stay profitable. This, in turn, stops new businesses, corporations, and visionaries from getting far enough ahead to become sustainable.

You described a corporatocracy, not a capitalist system. When the government is involved in the market, whether as a tool for large corporations and elite bankers or not, it's not capitalism.

The two are not mutually exclusive. Same as a "capitalist democracy," which is what we are labeled as, the "democracy" part doesn't make us less capitalist. Even if we do have a corporatocracy, that doesn't mean we aren't capitalist. In fact, I would argue that a corporatocracy would be nearly impossible without a capitalist society, or at least some form of society where a certain few businesses are allowed to rise above the rest.

The two are not mutually exclusive. Same as a "capitalist democracy," which is what we are labeled as, the "democracy" part doesn't make us less capitalist. Even if we do have a corporatocracy, that doesn't mean we aren't capitalist. In fact, I would argue that a corporatocracy would be nearly impossible without a capitalist society, or at least some form of society where a certain few businesses are allowed to rise above the rest.

Capitalism implies that we have laissez-faire, but corporatocracy couldn't exist if we did have laissez-faire. A capitalist society can transform into a corporatocracy, but it can't be both at the same time.

Sure it can. Laissez-Faire only applies to legal and governmental prevention of another company's business. These SOPA and PIPA bills are a perfect example of how we can be capitalist and a corporatocracy at the same time. I'll use the RIAA as an example:

The RIAA doesn't want you to give money to anyone but the RIAA. That is the only thing that it cares about. It is, after all, a business. It can't have the government stop you from giving money to others, because that would be obstruction of Laissez-Faire. It can, however, stop or limit your exposure to anything except properties that gain the RIAA money. This can be done by disguising SOPA and PIPA as "noble bills" that are there to stop people from pirating music from their artists. This is fine, but beyond that, they could potentially shut down any site that even has the capability of sharing pirated content. That means that in addition to keeping you from sharing RIAA artists' music, it would also keep you in the dark as to new, independent content.

The music industry is just a small example, but this also applies to any sort of trade. In the physical world, imagine that say, Macy's, owns every building on a city block except one. The small, independent clothing shop located there will not sell. But, Macy's needs the real estate to build a new store. They can't directly get involved in the shop, but they can use underhanded tactics to get around it. Maybe they search for, and report any sort of building code violations. This has the potential to get the small store shut down, without directly becoming involved with the sales end of the business.

So again, Capitalism doesn't imply that we have Laissez-Faire. We just happen to have both.

The term is plutocracy, rule by the wealthy.

Our economy is capitalist, which feeds directly into our government being a plutocracy, as the wealthy pay the govenment to just do whatever they want.

More than just corporations send money to the government for favors, so I think corporatocracy is a bit limited in scope.

I'll agree with that, NAM.

All this talk about internet censorship made me think of the Great Firewall of China, as I'm sure it did to many. Obviously, the bill is nowhere near that scope, but I firmly believe that in most cases freedom is not taken, it is given away bit by bit untill we have none.

If this bill gets passed, how long before congress feels that the kind of control China suffers is appropriate for America?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/14/white-house-sopa-pipa_n_1206347.html

This is a victory! Thank you to everyone else who did something other than bitching about it!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/14/white-house-sopa-pipa_n_1206347.html

This is a victory! Thank you to everyone else who did something other than bitching about it!

I was about to post this article about it as well.

I'm glad so many of us wrote our reps and made our voices heard.

This is how America works. When we are informed and act we can control the making of law. If we can shoot down this act with petitioning, imagine what else we can do!

Probably not a hell of a lot, unfortunately. The bill was poorly made and being voted on by a lot of people who didn't actually understand the technical aspects of it, and it took hundreds of thousands of people screaming about it for them to decide to just table it. Most people are divided about other issues we'd want to see taken care of, and the politicians are probably a little bit more informed in other aspects outside of technology (I'd hope, anyway).

Still, at least this much was a triumph that will make sure ambitious lawyers don't go suit crazy over trivial incidents.

PIPA is still there, and they only shelved SOPA indefinitely. (which could mean any number of things.) We're not out of the woods yet.

PIPA is set to vote on the 24th of January.  As for SOPA...  It doesn't want to be killed off.  http://judiciary.house.gov/news/01172012.html

PIPA is still there, and they only shelved SOPA indefinitely. (which could mean any number of things.) We're not out of the woods yet.

Definitely. I'm not so naiive as to think it won't resurface, but to see that voices were used and heard is comforting. For now, it's a victory for the people over the government- one I am convinced is the people's enemy.

I like what Wikipedia did to make more people aware of this, it's a bold move and it'll definitely have some people going "AAAHHH NOO MAKE IT STOP".
I just don't know why they had to do it just as I needed to research the Blue-Tongued Skink.

you can press esc as it loads to stop it, or look at it on a mobile platform, or look at in a diffrent language and translate

"Do you knnow what they call the Blue-Tongued Skink in France?"
"No, what?"
"La Blue-Tongued Skink."

So. I don't know if this has been mentioned or not, but has anyone considered the jobs that would be lost because of this? Google administrators, hell, even people on this site are being paid to make music or resources (although not full-time). I wanted to go to the U of A for computer science after graduating this year. I had a career plan set out. I was going to make an effort to be successful in life. And this would destroy that. If this passes, I could very well be wasting my time. I'm Canadian, but this would still affect me. I'm not blinded by my separation from the United States of America. If the internet is censored, I'm screwed. We're all screwed.

Those against SOPA now have Wikipedia and Google on their side.

Google alone is enough, but Wikipedia is down in protest(even if it is easily bypassed via noscript). That is a huge deal to a lot of people. Hopefully it will get more attention and more people will send word to congress.

I cannot see SOPA, or any of the slightly altered versions of the same bill, passing when some of the biggest sites are against it. Especially considering how small the group it would actually assist is. No one benefits from this but the RIAA and groups like it. They're just afraid that times are changing, their model is worn out and they refuse to adapt. Everyone else would be harmed if this passes, so don't give up your dreams just yet.

Participate in the petitions, take down any sites you own in protest. Share the news with everyone you can and get them to do the same.

We don't have to go anywhere or really do much to fight this. Just tell people. A lot of people likely have no idea what it is or why they should care.

The ESA is for SOPA...

And Google is against it.

This bill will not pass!

http://kotaku.com/5877842/congressional-vote-on-pipa-gets-delayed-meaning-controversial-bill-may-not-become-law

With Megaupload taken down just like that it doesn't look like whether or not these bills pass has much of an effect.

difference being they had to actually go through the legal process to take down megaupload and they allegedly have emails proving the owners of megaupload were re-upping infringing content via dummy accounts after they were forced to take those things down.

Megaupload getting taken down means the laws already in place are enough for them to fight piracy without having to introduce bills that would infringe on our freedoms. So in a way, it's a good thing since it proves how needless SOPA and PIPA really are.

Yep, but through current laws it can take a long time to take down websites. I think the MegaUpload process took over a year or almost? They want it expeditious, with no resistance.

I *think* the only current "quick" alternative for copyright holders is to take it to court and hopefully drain the resources of the defendant dry.

It's kind of like how you can't search someone's property without a warrant and you can't put someone in prison without a trial. Our legal system is there to protect the innocent.

"better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

SOPA and PIPA support has pretty much collapsed. Thank god.

Not pretty much, they've been downed since yesterday. There's already a new bill, though, written by the same Lamar guy: HR. 1981. Read it, and discuss.

http://www.slashgear.com/sopa-sponsor-has-another-internet-bill-that-records-you-247-20210264/

That one? Expect it to be met with the same resistance and ultimately, failure, again. If it somehow passes or is secretly slipped into another bill and goes unnoticed it's a pretty good example of how corrupt and how shit your government is at the moment.

Goddammit, another one? Jesus, do these people not take a hint? If SOPA and PIPA and even MegaUpload's removal (which, honestly, did have some legitimate reasoning at least) met with such an enormous negative backlash from the public, what the absolute fuck do they think people are going to think about PCIPA?

"What's this? Having all of my internet history recorded each time I use my credit card? Well that sounds like fun! This will certainly make up for not having my internet censored for me!"

@ the US Government:

Lamar Smith and Chris Dodd have to go. Plain and simple.

Why do you people seem surprised?

Goddammit, another one? Jesus, do these people not take a hint? If SOPA and PIPA and even MegaUpload's removal (which, honestly, did have some legitimate reasoning at least) met with such an enormous negative backlash from the public, what the absolute fuck do they think people are going to think about PCIPA?

"What's this? Having all of my internet history recorded each time I use my credit card? Well that sounds like fun! This will certainly make up for not having my internet censored for me!"

It's the cybercriminals delight. Just imagine it they got access to that information. Not only do they have your credit card information, they can also match your buying patterns which makes it less likely for their abuse to be caught.
What an excellent idea

"better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

Hug me, Irock.

I know I'm fixating on this quote out-of-context, but I have to comment on it. Y'see, I always say "The worst crime you can commit is the conviction of an innocent." And people actually disagree with me on that, even though the statement only implies that it's better to let ONE guilty man go for the sake of an innocent. But you say ten? I thought any number above one would be too radical. I thought I was the only one who actually recognized the importance of protecting the innocent over catching the guilty. Thank you. Thank you for restoring some of my faith in humanity.

Now, on topic, anybody else notice how frighteningly close we are to a "Big Brother"-esque reality?

You realize that's a quote by William Blackstone, right?

I AM William Blackstone!

Completely slipped under my radar that so many big countries have already signed ACTA. Heard from here and there that Poland will join in on the signing, making the rest of europe a bit anxious. Scandinavian *chan boards are going wild!