So who agrees with S.O.P.A?
28 December 2011, 10:12 AM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
So who agrees with S.O.P.A?
Anybody think this will be making its way over here?
http://m.nbcbayarea.com/nbcbayarea/p...tguid=xYUiicPW
http://m.nbcbayarea.com/nbcbayarea/p...tguid=xYUiicPW
What is SOPA?MIKE ANDERSON12/27/2011 3:44 PM
You may have heard the term "SOPA" getting thrown around these last few days. But what exactly does it mean?
The future of the Internet is at a crossroads because of SOPA and Protect IP, two controversial bills on their way through congress that may affect you. Major tech companies in Silicon Valley have come out strongly against SOPA. Gizmodo even called it a "digital Patriot Act." But Hollywood says the bill is essential in the battle against online piracy.
CNET's Declan McCullagh broke it down. Here is the key information for a quick refresher:
What's the justification for SOPA and Protect IP?
Rogue websites, many offshore, that steal and pirate American content (movies, etc.) online. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), the head of the House Judiciary committee chairman, was the author of SOPA.
How would SOPA work?
Like an Internet death penalty. With a court order, the US attorney general could force a service provider like Comcast to prevent access to a website within five days.
Who supports SOPA?
The three organizations that have probably been the most vocal are the MPAA, the Recording Industry Association of America, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Hollywood outspent Silicon Valley by about ten-fold on lobbyists in the last two years.
Who's opposed to SOPA?
Many people and companies that use the Internet, such as Google, Facebook, Twitter, Zynga, eBay, Mozilla, Yahoo, AOL and Linkedin.
How is SOPA different from the earlier Senate bill called the Protect IP Act?
SOPA is broader. Protect IP targeted domain name system providers, financial companies and ad networks -- not companies that provide Internet connectivity.
What are the security-related implications of SOPA?
SOPA would require Internet providers to redirect allegedly piratical domain names to a different server, violating DNSSEC. DNSSEC is a set of security improvements to the domain name system so there is no break in the chain between a website and its user. Innocent websites could be swept up as collateral damage. The method can also be easily bypassed.
What will SOPA require Internet providers to do?
It could require Internet providers to monitor customers' traffic and block websites suspected of copyright infringement.
Are there free speech implications to SOPA?
To be blacklisted, a website must be "directed" at the U.S. and the owner has to "promote" acts that can infringe copyright. Opponents say SOPA has language that could blacklist the next YouTube, Wikipedia or WikiLeaks.
What has the response to this language been?
The Motion Picture Association of America said SOPA is perfectly constitutional. Mozilla, which makes the Firefox web browser, responded by asking its users to "Protect the Internet: Help us stop the Internet Blacklist Legislation...your favorite websites both inside and outside the US could be blocked based on an infringement claim."
Does the U.S. Congress support SOPA?
Support for Protect IP is remarkably broad, and SOPA a little less so. An analysis by the RIAA says that of some 1,900 bills that have been introduced in the Senate, only 18 other bills enjoy the same number of bipartisan cosponsors as Protect IP does.
What happens next?
In terms of Protect IP, the Senate Judiciary committee has approved it and it's waiting for a floor vote. One hurdle: Sen. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, has placed a hold on the bill. A vote on SOPA was postponed Friday, probably until sometime in early 2012. Where it goes from there is an open question that depends on where the House Republican leadership stands. Because the House's floor schedule is under the control of the majority party, the decision will largely lie in the hands of House Speaker John Boehner and his lieutenants.
You may have heard the term "SOPA" getting thrown around these last few days. But what exactly does it mean?
The future of the Internet is at a crossroads because of SOPA and Protect IP, two controversial bills on their way through congress that may affect you. Major tech companies in Silicon Valley have come out strongly against SOPA. Gizmodo even called it a "digital Patriot Act." But Hollywood says the bill is essential in the battle against online piracy.
CNET's Declan McCullagh broke it down. Here is the key information for a quick refresher:
What's the justification for SOPA and Protect IP?
Rogue websites, many offshore, that steal and pirate American content (movies, etc.) online. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), the head of the House Judiciary committee chairman, was the author of SOPA.
How would SOPA work?
Like an Internet death penalty. With a court order, the US attorney general could force a service provider like Comcast to prevent access to a website within five days.
Who supports SOPA?
The three organizations that have probably been the most vocal are the MPAA, the Recording Industry Association of America, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Hollywood outspent Silicon Valley by about ten-fold on lobbyists in the last two years.
Who's opposed to SOPA?
Many people and companies that use the Internet, such as Google, Facebook, Twitter, Zynga, eBay, Mozilla, Yahoo, AOL and Linkedin.
How is SOPA different from the earlier Senate bill called the Protect IP Act?
SOPA is broader. Protect IP targeted domain name system providers, financial companies and ad networks -- not companies that provide Internet connectivity.
What are the security-related implications of SOPA?
SOPA would require Internet providers to redirect allegedly piratical domain names to a different server, violating DNSSEC. DNSSEC is a set of security improvements to the domain name system so there is no break in the chain between a website and its user. Innocent websites could be swept up as collateral damage. The method can also be easily bypassed.
What will SOPA require Internet providers to do?
It could require Internet providers to monitor customers' traffic and block websites suspected of copyright infringement.
Are there free speech implications to SOPA?
To be blacklisted, a website must be "directed" at the U.S. and the owner has to "promote" acts that can infringe copyright. Opponents say SOPA has language that could blacklist the next YouTube, Wikipedia or WikiLeaks.
What has the response to this language been?
The Motion Picture Association of America said SOPA is perfectly constitutional. Mozilla, which makes the Firefox web browser, responded by asking its users to "Protect the Internet: Help us stop the Internet Blacklist Legislation...your favorite websites both inside and outside the US could be blocked based on an infringement claim."
Does the U.S. Congress support SOPA?
Support for Protect IP is remarkably broad, and SOPA a little less so. An analysis by the RIAA says that of some 1,900 bills that have been introduced in the Senate, only 18 other bills enjoy the same number of bipartisan cosponsors as Protect IP does.
What happens next?
In terms of Protect IP, the Senate Judiciary committee has approved it and it's waiting for a floor vote. One hurdle: Sen. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, has placed a hold on the bill. A vote on SOPA was postponed Friday, probably until sometime in early 2012. Where it goes from there is an open question that depends on where the House Republican leadership stands. Because the House's floor schedule is under the control of the majority party, the decision will largely lie in the hands of House Speaker John Boehner and his lieutenants.
28 December 2011, 10:50 AM
#3
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So what are people's objections to this? Why should copyrighted material be allowed to be stolen?
The only reaosn SOPA has come about is due to the fact that the exisitng DMCA legislation is largely ignored by those stealing content and those letting them.
SOPA - the sad but honest truth
The only reaosn SOPA has come about is due to the fact that the exisitng DMCA legislation is largely ignored by those stealing content and those letting them.
SOPA - the sad but honest truth
28 December 2011, 11:01 AM
#4
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
That thy are telling you what sites you can and cannot use.
Mega upload for one , yes users have used it for legal reasons but I've used it for legitimate reasons. If I was in the states right now I couldn't use it.
I can see dropbox also falling foul to this legislation due to you can upload your own content.
Mega upload for one , yes users have used it for legal reasons but I've used it for legitimate reasons. If I was in the states right now I couldn't use it.
I can see dropbox also falling foul to this legislation due to you can upload your own content.
Trending Topics
28 December 2011, 12:13 PM
#8
Something like that will probably find its way here.
But one thing I wonder. What is stopping someone inventing a 'new' internet? We have been trained into thinking that the internet is the only way to exchange or transfer data over distances between remote computers. Its not - its just the most convienient.
I remember the days where there was computers but with NO internet...if I was to play head to head Doom or Duke nukem with a mate, I'd directly dial up my mates house via voice modem. If I wanted to access my college/uni's servers from home, I'd have to phone that up!
Of course it would be going back to square one....voice modems or a digital subscriber line that connects to a server with its own linked network - but not the internet. The whole book could be rewritten, new network layers, new protocols, new encryptions, new browsers. It is still possible.
Doubt it would happen though, but 'if' internet law became so restrictive or controlling, it could make those seeking more freedom of data exchange seek alternate means to side step the use of the internet, maybe just using it as a encrypted private link to various subnets. We already have onion networking which is a form of this.
But one thing I wonder. What is stopping someone inventing a 'new' internet? We have been trained into thinking that the internet is the only way to exchange or transfer data over distances between remote computers. Its not - its just the most convienient.
I remember the days where there was computers but with NO internet...if I was to play head to head Doom or Duke nukem with a mate, I'd directly dial up my mates house via voice modem. If I wanted to access my college/uni's servers from home, I'd have to phone that up!
Of course it would be going back to square one....voice modems or a digital subscriber line that connects to a server with its own linked network - but not the internet. The whole book could be rewritten, new network layers, new protocols, new encryptions, new browsers. It is still possible.
Doubt it would happen though, but 'if' internet law became so restrictive or controlling, it could make those seeking more freedom of data exchange seek alternate means to side step the use of the internet, maybe just using it as a encrypted private link to various subnets. We already have onion networking which is a form of this.
Last edited by ALi-B; 28 December 2011 at 12:14 PM.
28 December 2011, 12:39 PM
#9
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: The Great White North
Posts: 25,080
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ali, there is already something like that, pretty sure the term is darknet. If you were to google I'm sure you could find out how to get on there. You can probably expect that most of the content there is going to be illegal and unsavory.
I've not read much about SOPA (always read it as SOAP, yanks trying to clean up the internet, thank you world police!) but it will be misused. The dinosaurs that are the MPAA and the RIAA either will not or cannot change and rather than being sensible about things, for example, provide a cost effective method of purchasing a movie online and using P2P to distribute it, they want to forcibly close down sites.
The question is how are they going to do this, redirect the domain name, hmm, well why not just use the direct IP address of the site in question then, no domain name resolution going on there. There is already software out there to do this, partly due to some other yank group grabbing sites that were, allegedly, infringing on things.
Look at the groups who oppose SOPA, not exactly a bunch of P2P sites are they? It's all about locking down the internet and having the US decide what we can and cannot access.
Not sure if anyone saw, but GoDaddy was one of the supporters of the act, and there is meant to be a boycott of GD on the 29th December, people moving their domains elsewhere, one such person owns a silly number of domains (he's the chap who has the "I can has cheeseburger" domain and other internet meme domains), think it's about a 1000.
I'm sure that if it is passed, the UK and other countries will follow suit to "protect" it's citizens, hmm, yeah right.
I've not read much about SOPA (always read it as SOAP, yanks trying to clean up the internet, thank you world police!) but it will be misused. The dinosaurs that are the MPAA and the RIAA either will not or cannot change and rather than being sensible about things, for example, provide a cost effective method of purchasing a movie online and using P2P to distribute it, they want to forcibly close down sites.
The question is how are they going to do this, redirect the domain name, hmm, well why not just use the direct IP address of the site in question then, no domain name resolution going on there. There is already software out there to do this, partly due to some other yank group grabbing sites that were, allegedly, infringing on things.
Look at the groups who oppose SOPA, not exactly a bunch of P2P sites are they? It's all about locking down the internet and having the US decide what we can and cannot access.
Not sure if anyone saw, but GoDaddy was one of the supporters of the act, and there is meant to be a boycott of GD on the 29th December, people moving their domains elsewhere, one such person owns a silly number of domains (he's the chap who has the "I can has cheeseburger" domain and other internet meme domains), think it's about a 1000.
I'm sure that if it is passed, the UK and other countries will follow suit to "protect" it's citizens, hmm, yeah right.
28 December 2011, 02:19 PM
#10
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The Terry Crews of moderation. P P P P P P POWER!!
Posts: 18,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the risk of sounding like something from Terminator 3 
Pandora's box is open. There is no going back and legislation like this will be impossible to implement effectively even with the co-operation of the big players in the internet game (which they don't have)
The real value of this kind of act is "propganda" value. They hope that if they talk a sufficiently tough game Mr Smith from Arcacia Avenue might not download that movie from Pirate Bay etc...
Of course, the argument that one should not steal copyrighted material is irrefutable - it is wrong, both legally and morally (irresepective of how many people do it), but the reality is that it cannot be stopped on the internet. Steps can be taken, however, to stop such behaviour crippling the film and music industry.
Unfortuntely, such methods are to the detriment of the people who really make the money (e.g. record companies) etc who have got rich and powerful under a system of "legitimate theft" from artists for decades and, understandably, are not keen to relinquish their ill gotten gains and thus support acts like the above.
Pandora's box is open. There is no going back and legislation like this will be impossible to implement effectively even with the co-operation of the big players in the internet game (which they don't have)
The real value of this kind of act is "propganda" value. They hope that if they talk a sufficiently tough game Mr Smith from Arcacia Avenue might not download that movie from Pirate Bay etc...
Of course, the argument that one should not steal copyrighted material is irrefutable - it is wrong, both legally and morally (irresepective of how many people do it), but the reality is that it cannot be stopped on the internet. Steps can be taken, however, to stop such behaviour crippling the film and music industry.
Unfortuntely, such methods are to the detriment of the people who really make the money (e.g. record companies) etc who have got rich and powerful under a system of "legitimate theft" from artists for decades and, understandably, are not keen to relinquish their ill gotten gains and thus support acts like the above.
Last edited by New_scooby_04; 28 December 2011 at 02:21 PM.
28 December 2011, 03:20 PM
#11
It's a bit annoying how the US congress thinks they own the internet and can dictate to the rest of the world.
Websites like Wikipedia have already boycotted organisations that have publicly supported SOPA (GoDaddy). The battle line has been drawn; on one side, big business, and the other; free-speech, open-source and information and knowledge sharing websites that wouldn't have stood a chance of being created had this act been in force. I know who's side I'd rather win!
Websites like Wikipedia have already boycotted organisations that have publicly supported SOPA (GoDaddy). The battle line has been drawn; on one side, big business, and the other; free-speech, open-source and information and knowledge sharing websites that wouldn't have stood a chance of being created had this act been in force. I know who's side I'd rather win!
28 December 2011, 03:37 PM
#12
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The other side of the coin though is that why should people be able to download copyrighted material for free.
I have made 3 longwinded DMCA (the current legislation) claims for content I have created in the last 5 years being made freely available and while 2 were successful the third never even bothered to reply to me so I was left with the option of legal action (in the USA) or just letting it go. Well of course I don't have funds/time to mount full on legal action across the pond so I had to let it ride while my content was made freely avalable by some ****** to all and sundry.
Of course as I haven't a clue what I am doing according to Jack Clark and am a Walter Mitty charater according to Ali our esteemed moderator none of this probably ever happned anyway
I have made 3 longwinded DMCA (the current legislation) claims for content I have created in the last 5 years being made freely available and while 2 were successful the third never even bothered to reply to me so I was left with the option of legal action (in the USA) or just letting it go. Well of course I don't have funds/time to mount full on legal action across the pond so I had to let it ride while my content was made freely avalable by some ****** to all and sundry.
Of course as I haven't a clue what I am doing according to Jack Clark and am a Walter Mitty charater according to Ali our esteemed moderator none of this probably ever happned anyway
28 December 2011, 05:16 PM
#14
Perhaps if Hollywood and the RIAA actually made some content worth paying for they'd not be so concerned!
16 January 2012, 07:14 PM
#17
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: The Great White North
Posts: 25,080
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shockingly (common sense prevailing when usually it does not), SOPA seems to have been killed, have a read here for more info.
Having said this, there is still PIPA, which is basically SOPA but with a different name. One hopes that those who made people aware of SOPA will do the same for PIPA and it will be defeated too.
Having said this, there is still PIPA, which is basically SOPA but with a different name. One hopes that those who made people aware of SOPA will do the same for PIPA and it will be defeated too.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
RS_Matt
Non Scooby Related
2
17 September 2015 08:59 PM
Dave T-S
ScoobyNet General
49
04 April 2001 03:35 PM
