I dunno, we don't let people who own TV stations let the cool kids walk in, put a DVD in, press play, and then sell ads, and if somebody calls and says "Hey you're running Ben-Hur did you buy broadcast rights" then they agree to take it down within 6 hours

+1 flint

Draconain laws that don't help anyone are no point... If you want to help then we need new more progressive laws....

Success, there is leaks in the dam!

Marco Rubio and some other Senator have dropped support.

My phone calls went:

"I would rather give a death sentance to illegal downloaders than a death sentance to the internet" after stating my name and candidacy.

One staffer told me 'but the bill has been put on hold'

To which I said on hold is nothing, throw it in a volcano and seal the volcano.

As Erick Erickson of Redstate.com said.... we need to primary anyone who tries to pass this... "This is a line you do not cross"

"Chris your analogy is wrong.

We do not shut down a television station for broadcasting a paid for commercial that has copyright violations, we call them, tell them the infringement, and then they work to remove the commercial.

Kill the commercial, sue whoever made it, but do not shut down the show or the channel for the infringement.

Btw comparing tv to the internet is like comparing walking to driving...

-1 Chris"

If they keep running such content because their whole business model is to broadcast without actually viewing it first, then yeah we do shut them down.

They CHOOSE to make broadcast simultaneous with the upload.  No other broadcaster makes that choice.  No other broadcaster is allowed to make that choice. 

If their values preclude you from closing the barn door until the horse leaves, it's time for a new farmer.

> Einstein wrote:

> You censor a website because one person posts a link to a torrent?

I think the whole point is to put the responsibilty to censor such things on the website holders, instead of trying to track down those who download illegally. I actually think that the bill will be used more to FORCE website holders to remove and actively monitor/police their own site instead of going "well it is not my problem what my site is used for". I can explain why this sort of system is being persued:

In a recent case of AFACT vs iiNet in Australia, several media giants took the ISP iiNet to court over copyright breaches that the customers of iiNet were responsible for. This case was won by iiNet for 2 reasons. Firstly, an ISP in Australia is NOT allowed to view what a user downloads so if iiNet was aware of illegal downloading through monitoring traffic it would be breaking the Privacy Act, and secondly, all examples of users that downloaded torrents were in fact lawful (through technicalities, which I will explain below).

Media giants find users that breach copyright laws by monitoring "downloads" of a seeded torrent by an employee of the media companies. Because the media company authorised that user to "upload" that content, it no longer breaches copyright. What this has essentially created is a situation which is stopping media companies persuing criminals because they are not able to obtain their details without making the action lawful, so what the SOPA/PIPA is trying to accomplish is to make website hosts police their content to make hosting it illegal. I do not know all the details of the bill, and from what I have read, there are some issues that should be corrected, but its intent should not be rejected.

Furthermore, censorship should be persued considering all other forms of media are censored also. There is actually very little stopping viewers/users of the Internet being exposed to media that they do not wish to see, and in some cases illegal, accidentally. I would be very surprised if anyone here has NOT been sent a disturbing image by a troll, or viewing information that breaks laws. The internet should not be a completely FREE-ACCESS media in which people can view/do whatever they like. I am a supporter of Internet censorship in Australia (and I know more than MOST people in Australia on the matter since I was working for an ISP for 2 and a half years, and also knew what was on the censored list ), and it was also designed to enforce existing laws (which funnily enough, NOONE disputed...for further reading, please look into the "CLASSIFICATION (PUBLICATIONS, FILMS AND COMPUTER GAMES) ACT 1995"). I agree that the bill needs further work before it is passed, but instead of outright rejecting it, the public should be trying to work with law-makers to find a working solution. For example, instead of prosecuting/blocking websites for breaches, submit take down notices for illegal content before legal action is taken. This would protect websites, whilst also protecting companies products.

"Btw comparing tv to the internet is like comparing walking to driving... "

Both are forms of transport (and there are also regulations to perform both safely if I am not mistaken...I mean J-walking is illegal yes? Crossing the street on a redlight is illegal yes? Both are regulated so everyone performs it safely)...any form of media should have censorship in one form or another. All forms of media have censorship, because normally a person is not responsible enough to not persue, or even unview what they have viewed. The internet requires some form of internet censorship (as evidenced by various forms of illegal material that is accessible over the internet, and by saying you SHOULD have access to it shows just how far the problem has gone to think you have a RIGHT to do this, when in some cases you do not but feel because you can, it is OK). I think a better question to ask is "what should be censored?"

Got a slight bit into censorship, but I think it works hand-in-hand with SOPA/PIPA.

The fact that technology makes it possible to upload BenHur onto a website for instantaneous viewing by 5 billion people doesn't throw the whole law of intellectual property onto its head.  It doesn't create a conundrum for the law, since, the exact same technology would allow me to dress like Cobra Commander and upload a tirade to a TV or radio station from my bedroom. 

They would not instantaneously broadcast it as soon as it hit their server.

They are responsible to impose a delay.

A TV or radio station that didn't accept that responsibility would be shut down.

Websites are NO DIFFERENT. 

Take every argument you've raised in defense of this wonderful new technology and its fragile billion-dollar companies.  Now pretend we're arguing about child porn.  Do they hold up? Why not--I only changed t he content not the medium or the legal responsibilities.

"Imagine having to have a judge examine all videos going onto youtube to prevent infringement..."  I can imagine interns viewing all of them before putting them up for viewing.

Some places take a few days to remove child porn due to sheer lack of activity by the admin *cough*soundslikeStefan*cough*

And I dare you to place a 6 hour delay on forum posts on IC and yahoomessenger and such.

Your awesomeness has a flat tire

Yeah I have several forums I occassionally goto like that.

Reviewing all interweb communication would be a violation of privacy. There is no reason for this illegal search of my posts.

Chris I am astonished at your stance... honestly... maybe your not the Conservative All Star I thought you to be.

Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Not a court of opinion.

Make it so the criminals do the time. Make a million dollar reward for turning them into US custody with proof of their crime. Punish them with 100 years in solitary confinement. Feed them stale bread and tasteless water. Use enhance interrogation methods on them to increase their misery.

But do not presume guilt or collaboration of others when they have no means to know such has occured and do not kill the internet!

Now I have cached this in as judicial of terms as I can. Does this suffice to change your view?

Nope.

The network is responsibile for its programming

The newspaper is responsible for its pages

In the world of personal property, the ship is responsible for its sealed cargo -- if DEA finds a sealed container on board a ship of 10,000 sealed containers it is the shipper who gets fined too

all these precedents are to be overturned regarding intellectual property because of two things?

1) web never has accepted this general liability responsibility and
2) it has been too cheap to budget for it

If that is true of all current providers, the tech remains independent of them and their heirs will be more careful.  Accepting the worse case scenario that we'll "kill" all their business.

You have no privacy posting through any other entity Einstein, you can be banned from each and every Internet service provider singly and separately if you violate their Terms of Service.  Your posts through their service are totally accessible to them as part of that service.  That same scrutiny which they assert over EVERY SINGLE USER for their own benefit can be legislated to protect property from theft.

Perhaps you are unaware but there are many who go further than you have gone, and I am saying this is not your position here, but there are many who say if the producer of IP wants to enjoy protection of property it is to blame for piracy because it charges too much, and its content is too easy to steal to blame anybody else, and they should pay all the costs of enforcement, and that will keep enforcement at a minimum, and anyhow who wants to get rid of all piracy cause you can't.

In the face of such anarchy we either preserve property or say "well your right to property must be conditional on the enjoyment of most people of the opportunity to steal it"  to say, the right of the farmer to his fields is conditional on the pleasure of the high school BMX club, and there must be a "balance"

I say no balance.  And it's that view not either of ours which is really mob rule.

of your three examples 2 are carriers and 1 is a route.  the carriers can bear liability and route does not.  Google is not the Internet itself.

Of those two examples...when week after week after week after week they tolerate that kind of illegality using their system and their excuse is "we are new and cool and we don't budget for effective interdiction" then yes, they do get shut down.

There is 4.3 unique top level address in the internet.

Sub domains increase this dramatically.

Rapidshare
IRC
ICQ
MSN Messenger
AIM
Torrents
... the list can go on.

Before my depression started I studied internet crimes with hopes of making a solution. I determined that the entire industry was wrong on how much theft was going on.

There was easily, at dead minimum, ten times more than published back in 2000.

This study was for my book on security.

I concluded that there is no effective way to end it, though you could enact steps to reduce it.

You could ban sites... only to watch new sites come up...

You could prosecute a few, only to watch it not make news and thus have no effect.

You could mass mail notices of theft... only to gather up innocents also (hacked wifi, open wifi, internet cafe)

You could enact sniffers... only to watch encryption start to change the hashes so that sniffers could not work.

You could enact DRM only to see it worked around.

You could require internet access on everything (Steam) yet lose massive market share

You could use commercials to educate... and change no minds.

You could declare war on the nation with the most hackers/file sharers... and well that has issues.

You could insert viruses in fake versions... for a while this was common, but the hackers had ways to confirm good copies.

You could make a hardware identification per CPU and watch purchases of old computers to be used for mass transfers before elimination.

You could record all internet activity but then there goes a way to tyranny.

You could try all sorts of ideas.

None will work.

Except one.

Kill the internet.

That is the only one that works.

I did however come up with an idea of a permament IP adress per person, where filesharing would end your IP... except then hackers would use innocents IPs to get their stuff.

So what do we have left?

The death sentence, long jail terms, and huge lawsuits, as well as a bit of everything (except the kill internet part) above.

Google is a mapbook. It is not a facilitator. It shows the routes more clearly.

Imperial Conflicts forum is an ally, where every person can say what he wants, but this may also allow them to provide stolen goods to others.

I say this clearly

I would not try to stop a civil war from happening to prevent these laws. The only possible effect of these laws is tyranny of the highest nature. I would expect death squads ten years after the bill was passed... a knock on the door in the night. I would not participate, but I would not hinder such a civil war.

My line is most clearly drawn on this.

@MedicineMan, I don't think this is freedom +1 or + anything. It's preventing web freedom from becoming -100000000