"What if SOPA was passed?"

[nmagain]

but that won't happen because it won't pass.

[Draxorion]

That's... Very impacting. I hope that nothing ever happens like that.

[mdog95]

That comic is actually really deep... The ending sucks though.

[priok]

This comic is probably the dumbest thing I've seen in a while, the Internet isn't going to disappear if it gets "censored", or if SOPA passes. Most of the people who are anti-SOPA/whatever are the real depressing thing, because it shows that everybody in the U.S. is more concerned about losing some file sharing websites more than they are about losing their freedom, which is happening with that NDAA thing.

It's just sad and reflects how little progress is ever going to be made in the U.S and other large countries like it, because everybody is getting side tracked with some dumb bill that is clogging up the news about the more important bill. It's sort of like when Obama allowed Gay Marriage and made a huge deal about it, just distracting everybody about the more important things going on during that time.

[nmagain]

Censoring everything would probably be just the beginning of it, Priok.

[Fringe Pioneer]

Jan 21, 2012 3:03:23 GMT priok said:

Most of the people who are anti-SOPA/whatever are the real depressing thing, because it shows that everybody in the U.S. is more concerned about losing some file sharing websites more than they are about losing their freedom, which is happening with that NDAA thing.

I am offended that you would dare make the assumption that most people are only concerned about losing file sharing websites! Do you have any idea how significant SOPA and PROTECT IP would be? Let me answer that for you - no, you apparently don't. There is more to SOPA and PROTECT IP than simply losing file sharing sites. This is a bill that allows the Attorney General and copyright holders to have entire sites brought down simply for having a single link to what could be a copyright infringement. This is a bill that effectively requires sites with user submitted content (e.g. the DBF) to constantly monitor user submissions to ensure no copyrights are infringed, that requires DNS to lie that the site does not exist should the site be accused (not necessarily be found guilty) of infringing copyright, that requires anything with a search feature to remove all links to the accused site, and that requires all payment agencies to stop business with the accused site. Should payment services take the initiative before hand to stop business with any site, those payment services get immunity from any charges, but should they fail to stop business with a site that is accused of infringing copyright, they can face severe penalties.

Guess what this all means? Since a site with user-submitted content would have to filter through all content to ensure that no copyrights are infringed, and since a site with user-submitted content would have to filter through many submissions just to make sure there isn't anything that could get the site in trouble, it will naturally be easier for the site to self-censor through some automated means that more than likely will censor more than it should or fail to censor what should be censored (if not both). Since payment agencies are legally encouraged to cut off business with any site and severely penalized for failing to do so, payment agencies will find it necessary to err on the safe side and cut off business from more sites than it should than risk the legal and financial issues involved with failing to stop business with a site that includes anything that infringes upon copyright.

Did I mention that copyright holders aren't heavily penalized for mistakenly accusing an innocent site of copyright infringement? That's right: someone could claim copyright infringement occurred on this forum and all of ProBoards (since we are only a sub-domain of the domain ProBoards) would stop receiving money, disappear from all search engines, and appear as non-existent to anyone who tries to type in the site name in the address bar. Even assuming a false accusation and ProBoards's innocence, it would be a really expensive lawsuit against the copyright holder, and depending upon who the copyright holder is, ProBoards could very easily be out-funded and have to shut down mid-way through court, making the lawsuit a moot point even if ProBoards were to technically win the case.

Whenever the copyright holders are really rich corporations like the MPAA and the RIAA, they are more likely to outspend any poor site that gets accused of infringement, regardless of whether there was actually any infringement. Since copyright holders aren't heavily penalized for wrongly accusing a site of infringement, since they can accuse a site of infringement at any time, and since they can effectively remove any site they accuse from search results and business, copyright holders could easily abuse their power to get rid of competitors or sites that don't agree with their views. All they have to do is claim that a site infringed upon their copyright and the copyright holder can effectively silence a site.

On top of all of this, pirates would still be able to successfully pirate software simply by registering a new domain name and then putting all the pirated files onto the new site. So, a bill that claims to stop piracy won't stop piracy? The only thing worse than a bill that does nothing would be a bill that gives easily abusable powers to individuals or groups that can't be trusted with such powers - oh wait, that's right - these bills do exactly that. Also take note that, although it's easy enough to register a new domain name and put files on it, it's significantly harder to restart a business after your business collapses. So that's another thing - any Internet business that is wrongly accused by a significantly larger entity would be forced out of business and likely rendered incapable of recovering.

To make matters even worse, the bill encourages changing the Domain Name System to make sites appear nonexistent to users, but tampering with the Domain Name System would introduce several cybersecurity threats.

Alright, class, let's review our notes. SOPA and PROTECT IP would:

• fail to stop pirates when the entire point of the bills is to stop pirates,
  
• give easily abusable powers to copyright holders,
  
• effectively encourage self-censorship,
  
• lead to Internet businesses going out of business if accused by MPAA or RIAA or similar, and
  
• introduce major security holes.

A clearly broken bill that can't even do what it says it will do and could effectively bring major censorship to the Internet is a bill I believe must be stopped...

[mdog95]

Wow. Big text wall. You can always tell Veers is mad when he rages in a full essay.

[nmagain]

that post made me cry

[priok]

Basically what I was saying is that I don't see that as important as the NDAA bill, I am really not sure if you read after a few words in that sentence, but I didn't read all of yours, so it's cool. But again, I am not sure which one is more important to you, I guess this is the Internet so many people do not do anything outside of it anyway, so the more important one for them would be obvious. Maybe this bill really is so bad, but I honestly just cannot see its priority over a bill that can arrest you for supporting a candidate in some election, and having food in one's house.

I am not really saying that it would only affect the file sharing websites(I'm pretty sure I didn't, too) but more that I don't see it as large of a priority as people act when compared to more important things like NDAA.(maybe it's called something else, I haven't heard the name people use for it)

[nmagain]

I'm not in America so the NDAA wouldn't affect me if it passes, but SOPA, on the other hand, will. The internet is an international entity, you should have that in mind.

[Anonymousperson5]

Priok, this is why Congress is incredibly stupid for even writing this bill. GV listed a ton of things horrible about it, so I won't talk about that.

But what I think is that Congress is just so incredibly stupid for even trying this bill, and I guess we can't expect anything else until another generation, where I hope that someone will be able to take America out of its sorry state. Mainly of debt right now because that's the biggest problem.

And as an afterthought, this is the internet. We think mainly about the internet on the internet. I'm sure there are some people who think other bills are incredibly stupid too.

[priok]

Jan 21, 2012 16:34:47 GMT nmagain said:

I'm not in America so the NDAA wouldn't affect me if it passes, but SOPA, on the other hand, will. The internet is an international entity, you should have that in mind.

Yeah, I guess you are sort of right, it's the Internet after everything, you know, home court advantage or something. But I can still see things like the NDAA showing up in other places, sort of like how there is that ACTA thing going around in Poland right now. I think it would probably have some affect on people even living outside of the U.S, at least with some influence to create other laws like it in places like the U.K. and other powerful countries. I guess this post I found is kind of the way I stand on it: chadhogg.name/~chad/wordpress/?p=1027

I am sort of seeing the NDAA as just the beginning to what could happen all over.

[AlchmistFaust]

That makes George Orwell twist in his coffin while screaming "I told you so!"

SOPA will affect all of the internet, something the US have no right to try to control. However, It won't possibly pass, as you guys said, seeing as the most important supporters are not putting their hands on a fire for the bill.

[mdog95]

Here is exactly why these bills won't pass:

Multi-billion dollar internet corporations such as Google, eBay, Youtube, and many others are sending their best lobbyists to give every single reason why these bills would be better off pigeon-holed by the Speaker of the House or the President of the Senate. And if all else fails, the corporations will give the congressmen millions of dollars each to vote no on the bills so their business won't go under because of the bills.

In addition, more are opposed than for it. The Speaker of the House and Obama (probably more important people) are against these bills.

Ergo, these bills most likely won't pass.

[Zrined]

They were suspended indefinitely and co-sponsors dropped out and the author of SOPA dropped out.

[Fringe Pioneer]

Well, Priok, I must admit that part of its provisions (mainly the one you indicated about citizens being able to be detained indefinitely without trial or any other overhead) are frightening, and it's a shame on me for not having spoken out against it, but alas - the bill is already voted into law and it's too late for me to do anything now. The case is quite different for SOPA and PROTECT IP, which are were still being discussed in Congress, so I still had time while I knew of their existence to speak out against them. Having known about the bills and what they do, I finally contacted my representatives...