Subject: I'd sign it if I could.
Author:
Posted on: 2011-11-17 12:33:00 UTC
Unfortunately, I'm not an american citizen.
Also... intellectual property's such a ting. Copyright's a fuzzy thing anyways. And who tells me that they're not infringing anything.
http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-the-internet-control-bill-now
To quote the devArt user on whose journal I found this; "Tomorrow there's a bill going through that could give entertainment companies the right to censor your website if they think that you MIGHT have something infringing on their IP. I understand the need to protect their IP, but this bill is so far sweeping they could use it to shut down almost any website or block individual access based on their whim. This infringes on our first amendment rights."
I thought it was important to bring this over here.
It's here.
7) the term ‘Internet site dedicated to infringing activities’ means an Internet site that--
(A) has no significant use other than engaging in, enabling, or facilitating the--
(i) reproduction, distribution, or public performance of copyrighted works, in complete or substantially complete [emphasis mine] form, in a manner that constitutes copyright infringement under section 501 of title 17, United States Code;
(ii) violation of section 1201 of title 17, United States Code; [Which is all about DRM circumvention, see here] or
(iii) sale, distribution, or promotion of goods, services, or materials bearing a counterfeit mark, as that term is defined in section 34(d) of the Lanham Act; or
(B) is designed, operated, or marketed by its operator or persons operating in concert with the operator, and facts or circumstances suggest is used, primarily as a means for engaging in, enabling, or facilitating the activities described under clauses (i), (ii), or (iii) of subparagraph (A);
It later goes on to cover 'Internet Sites Engaged in [rather than 'dedicated to'] Infringing Activities'... but only with the immediate addition of 'That Endanger the Public Health'.
Hmm.
hS
I have serious, serious issues with the part of the DMCA that forbids any attempt to bypass DRM. There are far too many ways that this can be used to legislate security researchers to death for daring to look at commercial programs.
But that's not directly related to the subject at hand.
Though being a technically unskilled technophile, I doubt my knowledge/skills are enough to do well at decoding the byzantine language both DMCA and SOPA use, I know enough to know that what you say is right. It seems to me to be an attempt to throw a bone to certain contributors to the U.S. system for very little practical benefit to the constituents in either freedoms or even actual online protection; U.S. politicians use the same intranet as everyone else - no matter how much kick back they get from private interests, you'd think the downsides would be obvious...
I sent a very lengthy letter to my representative. It will accomplish nothing alone, but we shall see how the reaction to the backlash this has triggered will go.
No way. It violates too much Constitution.
Don't we have a Constitution that's supposed to prevent these sorts of things?
The bill is so poorly written that it would allow any copyright owner to shut down a legitimate retail website, such as Amazon or Best Buy, by alleging that one product being sold on the site could “enable or facilitate” an infringement. It could even allow any content owner to block access to the Patent Office website if it receives and posts a patent application for a product that is believed to use content without permission.
This'll be killed pretty much immediately. There is no way this thing can pass.
Hope I don't get any emails from Change.org that I don't need.
This is *ridiculous*. For heaven's sake, as long as there is internet people will infringe copyright. It's not exactly stoppable. Shutting down sites will NOT help.
Especially if it's a "might".
And, I sent a letter through another website that's in on the action of telling these guys not to sign it. Seriously, this bill...
The scary thing is, it's picked up a lot of support as a "bipartisan" bill. Pfft, really, I would buy that if you didn't so heavily skew the hearings towards one side, Congress.
Well, here's hoping this bill doesn't go through. Vague wording is never a good thing.
This bill is a Very Bad Thing. Taking media law class, I've learned that America is supposed to work on the assumption that there is a free market of ideas: anybody can come in and say whatever they want. The government isn't supposed to say who can come in, stop people at the door, or stand in front of certain sources of information.
In this bill's quest to hinder a portion of the internet, it threatens to stand in front of the whole internet and prevent access... and even mess up the way the internet itself works.
Not to mention it's horribly vague and just... ahaugh. The idea that streaming a video game can become a felony... So many things use streaming nowadays- even music labels!
Needless to say, I've signed a zillion things, sent letters to all of my representatives, sent letters to the representatives of the state I'm currently in, and have my eyes peeled.
Good ol Chuck Schumer is one of the co-sponsors of the bill in the Senate. I don't think sending him letters is going to help...
considering that NYC is one of the most concentrated hubs of internet connectivity in the world, thanks to things like this:
http://boingboing.net/2011/11/15/bundled-buried-behind-close.html
I just found out that Kristin Gillibrand, the other New York Senator, is also co-sponsoring the bill...
And this is unacceptable. At least that number's climbing pretty quickly, though I'd be pretty worried if it didn't.
This bill is obviously draconion and overly broad in its approach. I personally do not approve of internet piracy, but a more measured approach is required to address the problem's caused by it. We need a surgical scalpel as opposed to this bill's chainsaw, one might say.
Anyway, down with this bill.
http://www.mozilla.org/sopa/?WT.mc_ID=sopa-snippet
Phobos and I sent a message through them last night. We meant to post, but other stuff came up, so I'm glad you got the ball rolling. {= ) Can't hurt to do 'em both, right?
~Neshomeh
I signed it 'cause it kept popping up on "ThatGuyWitheGlasses.com", and an't nothin' keeping me from watching the Nostalgia Critic and company!
Boy and I thought Youtube was bad... I really freakin' hate big businesses sometimes.
Same thing happened to me on tgwtg.com. People who use the Internet will find out and make sure it won't pass because it threatens their enjoyment of some of their favorite websites.
Seriously?
Wow, and I thought our government was bad enough already. This is being passed in blatant disregard for our constitutuinal rights.
Is there an age limit for signing this petition?
Unfortunately, I'm not an american citizen.
Also... intellectual property's such a ting. Copyright's a fuzzy thing anyways. And who tells me that they're not infringing anything.
Besides, if this bill goes through, it's only a matter of time before other countries decide they don't want freer speech than America and start putting similar bills through.
They need all the help they can get.
... and I'm not even an American citizen! As if mandatory, government-regulated Internet filters are bad enough, now the US DoJ is pushing for this?
And this seems to be based on the assumption that ANY website MIGHT contain a POSSIBLE infringement? THEN the whole kit'n'kaboodle gets taken down?
*sigh* I truely fail to see the logic in all of this. IF it goes through, we might be next on the chopping block, for all I know.