Posted by Pimpsy G.

This is a very large misconception and the site you are showing is incredibly biased. This bill is not unjust at all. It is not about congress running around, shutting down youtube videos, and censoring everything that they can. Music on YouTube wont be censored, because many of these artists already post their music themselves on this website. This bill only calls for companies and other publishers to have their right to file suit against services that pirate and/or steal their work that they worked hard for, and present their case to the supreme court to be reviewed before it is even considered to be taken down individually.

This is very important, because its not about the, "free and open" aspect of the internet. That will still largley remain in tact after this. It is about the fact that the internet is a massive factory for piracy and scandals, full of torrents and illegal sites that protrude and damage companies such as Adobe and many others. People really need to remember that this bill first forces companies to submit their claims to the supreme court just like any other scam or fraud, and the government cannot just step in by themselves.

If anything, I am all for SOPA, because no sane person can openly say that the internet is anywhere near legal.

I'm not saying it's anywhere near legal. A plethora of illegal activities goes on on a day-to-day basis. But who's to say that it should be governed? It is not a "U.S. Technology". It is world-wide, and the US should not block me from viewing websites just because someone has a copyright infringement on the website.

You are also correct in stating that it'd allow publishers their rights and whatnot. It enables copyright holders to take action on no only websites engaging in copyright infringement, but also facilitating it as well - hence the Youtube, Facebook, etc., references. Essentially these website have the choice of Censoring all of their users, or shutting down for fear of being sued.

Actions of such lawsuits will ban companies not directly involved (Such as Paypal or other banking-like websites) from doing business with the website(s) deemed as copyright infringing. So essentially the Government is telling people who we can and can not do business with.

This bill also makes it illegal to stream copyrighted content. Goodbye Youtube. A fine for 1 (ONE) view of a copyrighted, streamed video can lead to a penalty fine of up to $1,000. That's for one view.

A large majority of current up-and-running companies, including investors, have already publicly stated that if this Bill should pass, they will drop funding or move to a different market. That doesn't sound very good for the U.S. Job Market, considering it's already in the crapper.

This bill would really stifle and kill a lot of start-up and internet entrepreneurship.  

youtube is already starting to do it, i cant tell you how many videos have had their audio removed due to copyright infringement with WMG, and if it happens too many times they ban your youtube account.  

This goes against America!

If you've researched anything about China you'll know that their internet is censored by their government. That's exactly what could happen here!

It goes against our rights! It goes against what our country stands for!

If this goes through, it seems a perfect thing to devote my life to attempting to stop.  

Posted by Higbey

youtube is already starting to do it, i cant tell you how many videos have had their audio removed due to copyright infringement with WMG, and if it happens too many times they ban your youtube account.

Correct. This is actually enforced under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which (when applied to removing music on certain videos on youtube) is being already enacted, so what is the need to block the entire site (or continue to remove videos) on Youtube?  

Posted by Azrael

I'm not saying it's anywhere near legal. A plethora of illegal activities goes on on a day-to-day basis. But who's to say that it should be governed? It is not a "U.S. Technology". It is world-wide, and the US should not block me from viewing websites just because someone has a copyright infringement on the website.

You are also correct in stating that it'd allow publishers their rights and whatnot. It enables copyright holders to take action on no only websites engaging in copyright infringement, but also facilitating it as well - hence the Youtube, Facebook, etc., references. Essentially these website have the choice of Censoring all of their users, or shutting down for fear of being sued.

Actions of such lawsuits will ban companies not directly involved (Such as Paypal or other banking-like websites) from doing business with the website(s) deemed as copyright infringing. So essentially the Government is telling people who we can and can not do business with.

This bill also makes it illegal to stream copyrighted content. Goodbye Youtube. A fine for 1 (ONE) view of a copyrighted, streamed video can lead to a penalty fine of up to $1,000. That's for one view.

A large majority of current up-and-running companies, including investors, have already publicly stated that if this Bill should pass, they will drop funding or move to a different market. That doesn't sound very good for the U.S. Job Market, considering it's already in the crapper.

This bill would really stifle and kill a lot of start-up and internet entrepreneurship.

I get what your saying, and it makes perfect sense, but its not like the government will permanently shut down these companies. They require the companies, such as YouTube and not the people uploading the content, to fix their services that allow people to operate illegally. No one random person can attempt this. It has to be the publisher of the song being used on YouTube illegally that sues someone for copyright infringement, and that in itself is perfectly just in my opinion, because it is going in the Supreme Court against a major corporation, and unless something incredibly illegal is happening on YouTube, the site will not be shut down or banned. This goes for any corporation based on the internet, and their sites will not be shut down unless some major illegal activity is taking plase behind their own walls to the point that the Supreme Court sees this fraud as much as any fraud in real life.
So, I hope you're getting what I am saying. If anything this bill will not change the internet entrepreneurship in any sense, because the damage on both ends of the spectrum end up being pretty equal in the long run. It just all comes down to this question:

Would you rather start up companies to be shut down due to other start up companies pirating and stealing their services, or for the illegal start up companies being shut down through the Supreme Court for pirating other companies?  

i can imagine next they would like to enforce libel, making review sites and such completely shut down, imagine how facebook groups against a certain companies practices would get shut down for causing them to lose customers.

it just seems they made this bill way too strict and too broad, its one of those slippery slope bills, the internet is like a no mans land, alot of us like it that way.  

Another point:
The artist themself has to sue these sites for illegal content. Its ALLOWING them to present their case to the supreme court, and have a say against people stealing their content. Since the product is being copied electronically instead of being stolen in a case such as YouTube, the artist doesn't lose nor gain money from it. They should be happy people are looking for their merchandise.
So why would they even sue for people using their content?  

Just a question Azrael, let's say I watch a video about minecraft on YouTube would that soon be removed, because sometimes you hear the soundtrack in the back or even just simply the video. That would be removed? That would be horrible it would be the end of entertainment.  

No. Notch has already stated if a thing like this gets passed he will try to add something allowing people to make let's plays. I don't know if all games would do that though.,  

Posted by Higbey

No. Notch has already stated if a thing like this gets passed he will try to add something allowing people to make let's plays. I don't know if all games would do that though.,

Why would a company sue someone for making lets plays? All it is doing is giving the company free advertisement.  

Off to Canada then! The badass country. Free healthcare and no wars? F**k yeah!  

Posted by Pimpsy G.

Why would a company sue someone for making lets plays? All it is doing is giving the company free advertisement.

If you really think that nobody would abuse this right to sue major companies and get money then you're sadly mistaken.  

Posted by Pimpsy G.

This is a very large misconception and the site you are showing is incredibly biased. This bill is not unjust at all. It is not about congress running around, shutting down youtube videos, and censoring everything that they can. Music on YouTube wont be censored, because many of these artists already post their music themselves on this website. This bill only calls for companies and other publishers to have thier right to file suit against services that pirate and/or steal their work that they worked hard for, and present their case to the supreme court to be reviewed before it is even considered to be taken down individually.

This is very important, because its not about the, "free and open" aspect of the internet. That will still largley remain in tact after this. It is about the fact that the internet is a massive factory for piracy and scandals, full of torrents and illegal sites that protrude and damage companies such as Adobe and many others. People really need to remember that this bill first forces companies to submit their claims to the supreme court just like any other scam or fraud, and the government cannot just step in by themselves.

If anything, I am all for SOPA, because no sane person can openly say that the internet is anywhere near legal.

I agree, but the bill itself is too vague. See your account? Taken down for having the word "McDonalds" in it. My account? Banned for having a Polemon picture profile. This forum? Banned because Stefan didnt give permission for this site. Why is it banned? Because it violated copyright laws. Hell, if it goes to extreme levels, YouTube can be taken down too. This bill is basically saying "Hey fellow Americans! We're going to take your freedom and rights if you pass this bill! We can basically control the internet if this passes!" And my favorite website, 4chan.org, is going to be number uno to be taken down.  

Posted by DragonRider

I agree, but the bill itself is too vague. See your account? Taken down for having the word "McDonalds" in it. My account? Banned for having a Polemon picture profile. This forum? Banned because Stefan didnt give permission for this site. Why is it banned? Because it violated copyright laws. Hell, if it goes to extreme levels, YouTube can be taken down too. This bill is basically saying "Hey fellow Americans! We're going to take your freedom and rights if you pass this bill! We can basically control the internet if this passes!" And my favorite website, 4chan.org, is going to be number uno to be taken down.

And Stefan already has something against this site for some reason so he'd definitely make sure it was taken down.  

Posted by DragonRider

I agree, but the bill itself is too vague. See your account? Taken down for having the word "McDonalds" in it. My account? Banned for having a Polemon picture profile. This forum? Banned because Stefan didnt give permission for this site. Why is it banned? Because it violated copyright laws. Hell, if it goes to extreme levels, YouTube can be taken down too. This bill is basically saying "Hey fellow Americans! We're going to take your freedom and rights if you pass this bill! We can basically control the internet if this passes!" And my favorite website, 4chan.org, is going to be number uno to be taken down.

NUUUUUU NOT THE MEMES!!!! D<