Internet : Stop Online Piracy Act

I see a lot of people going "Oh noes, this new censorship bill is horrible and must not ever go through! It will take away everything I have ever loved and kill my puppy!" Even though, as near as I can tell, it isn't actually doing most of the things people are complaining about.

It's NOT going take away FREEDOM OF SPEECH and PUPPIES. It isn't going to shut down Youtube and Fanfiction.net as its first order of buisness, and its not going to fine you 5000$ for singing a song or ban all streaming content. Its in place to protect the rights of creators. Artists and writers, who need to make a living off the material they produce. Not the musicians who have made millions of dollars of a platinum selling album… but the little guys who live from paycheck to paycheck . Ties into the whole "doesn't become public domain until after the creator's death" thing thats essential to artists making money. Torrents and pirating would be the main targets.

I haven't read the whole thing in detail, I don't have the time for it, and it might have some badly written passages that need to go. It might need to be more specific and exact about what its targeting rather than broad and loose. But its not the evil communist censorship nazi menace given form, even though TUmblr and LJ and BoingBoing are honking about it and scaring people who are reading 2 or 3 bullet points, that I'm not sure are even in there. (The bill ISN'T just 3 bullet points, right? Its many pages?)

Hiroy

I'm as scared of this bill as y2k, global warming and 2012.

I'm totally flipping my shit now.

Robby

I think it says a lot that the pannikers have to call it "The Censorship Bill" and throw the label of "blacklisting" on there to make it sound scarier when it is actually two different things…

The "Protect IP Act" in the Senate
and the "Stop Online Piracy Act" in the House

But hey, censorship and huge ridiculous fines and all your favorite things going away are much easier to get worked up about than protecting rights and ownership.

Conekiller

"Don't take away my ability to download movies, music and porn for free!!~~~" Basically?

Robby

@Conekiller:

"Don't take away my ability to download movies, music and porn for free!!~~~" Basically?

That's pretty much the reason for the reaction, and why misguiding labels are being thrown around it, yes.

Malintex_Terek

I usually don't care about stuff like this, but after looking over things last night I did write to my Congressman earlier this morning.

It's a deliberately bad bill and I would be shocked if it passed, but with the precedent of the hentai ban passing in Tokyo a few months ago, stranger things have already happened.

KaizokuFan22

@RobbyBevard:

That's pretty much the reason for the reaction, and why misguiding labels are being thrown around it, yes.

what would happen to social sites then?

Robby

@KaizokuFan22:

what would happen to social sites then?

Nothing. Why would anything happen to them? Find the place in the bill that says it would do anything to social media sites or that they'd be a major target.

Extra tricky since its actually two different bills doing two different things, so you may have to look carefully.

This is stuff designed to hamper bootlegging and copyright infringement. The wording might be a little broad at the moment, but its NOT trying to make the internet into 1970's communist Russia.

Torrents, scanlations, and streams of movies and music that haven't been purchased are the likely targets, not freedom of speech.

sigh I'm gonna change the thread title now. We don't need THIS place randomly fear mongering like Facebook is doing.

Nobodyman

@RobbyBevard:

sigh I'm gonna change the thread title now. We don't need THIS place randomly fear mongering like Facebook is doing.

Fear Mongering: it's the American way.

KaizokuFan22

@RobbyBevard:

Nothing. Why would anything happen to them? Find the place in the bill that says it would do anything to social media sites or that they'd be a major target.

Extra tricky since its actually two different bills doing two different things, so you may have to look carefully.

This is stuff designed to hamper bootlegging and copyright infringement. The wording might be a little broad at the moment, but its NOT trying to make the internet into 1970's communist Russia.

Torrents, scanlations, and streams of movies and music that haven't been purchased are the likely targets, not freedom of speech.

sigh I'm gonna change the thread title now. We don't need THIS place randomly fear mongering like Facebook is doing.

thanks. that calms me a bit kowing that.. i was told earlier that the bill would effect them and it worried me

would the president even pass the bills anyways?

wolfwood

A better use of their time might be to build a time machine and go back and stop the internet altogether.

Mumbling2

@RobbyBevard:

Its in place to protect the rights of creators. Artists and writers, who need to make a living off the material they produce. Not the musicians who have made millions of dollars of a platinum selling album… but the little guys who live from paycheck to paycheck . Ties into the whole "doesn't become public domain until after the creator's death" thing thats essential to artists making money.

This. I'm tired of people claiming some sort of high ground when they get copyrighted content for free, believing they're only screwing over millionaires. Or the even bigger BS argument that they're only downloading/streaming stuff they wouldn't have paid for anyway.

I'm as guilty as everyone else. I listen to music on YouTube, read scanlations, etc. but if this bill succeeds in protecting the rights of the creator, I'm all for it.

Oh yeah, and thank you americancensorship.org for not providing a clear, easy to find link to the actual wording of the bill. I'd much rather read opinions than actual info.

TLC

This post is deleted!

Robby

@Mumbling2:

Oh yeah, and thank you americancensorship.org for not providing a clear, easy to find link to the actual wording of the bill. I'd much rather read opinions than actual info.

Its because the thing they're fear mongering so heavily doesn't actually exist. There is no American Censorship Bill.

Like I said before, its actually two different bills, one currently in the house, one in the senate, and neither of them actually do what they're claiming. The wording might just be a bit too broad and and the punishments too severe right now and need another pass, but… it isn't what they're claiming.

@KaizokuFan22:

would the president even pass the bills anyways?

Well, I don't know how often he signs documents that don't exist. That's his own buisness. It would have to get through the house and senate first, and they're too broad to do that in their current form.

Remember this prank for April Fools next year folks.

sanji499

@WarshipArc:

If China can do it so can the rest of the world

Good point. It is a system created by humans.

Wikileak has already been shutdown for showing politicians doing stupid things. Remember the "Awesomo" episode from South park. Instead of going through all the trouble of destroying the tape, Cartman should have stopped being an ass to Butters and it would have been over. Well, Politicians did the same thing except it worked.

Conekiller

Huh, now the Firefox homepage is in on this too…

Robby

Because the internet flooded in a panick of people reporting the same story yesterday.

Its kind of like when that news story about cancer being cured got a lot of run, then it turned out to be an old article from seven years ago that had gotten bumped and was a false lead.

Its news because people are making it news. And it doesn't matter, with this much media attention its likely not to pass this go around. Even if everyone is reporting on a bill that doesn't exist. But it can pass in a month with a different name and a slightly rewritten context and wording and no one will care because there won't be someone shouting "COMMUNISM!" from the rooftops.

Do a quick google search for "American Censorship Bill", you won't find it anywhere except all the sites protesting it and blowing it out of proportion, full of scary banners and bullet points. Do a google search for "Stop Online Piracy Act" and you'll find a whole bunch of links to actually political and government sites with actual information.

If anyone wants to ACTUALLY read it and see for themselves what it says, you can find the "Stop Online Piracy Act" here.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.3261:

IN THE VERY FIRST SENTENCE, (that isn't table of contents) IT HAS THIS MESSAGE. AT THE START OF THE BILL.

(a) Savings Clauses-

(1) FIRST AMENDMENT- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to impose a prior restraint on free speech or the press protected under the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.

(2) TITLE 17 LIABILITY- Nothing in title I shall be construed to enlarge or diminish liability, including vicarious or contributory liability, for any cause of action available under title 17, United States Code, including any limitations on liability under such title.

(b) Severability- If any provision of this Act, or the application of the provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the other provisions or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

And then it has a lot of text describing exactly what it would be targetting, and specifies CRIMINAL acts. Things that are currently illegal. Like theft.

And there is a lengthy "REASONABLE MEASURES" clause. And description of what the court would have to do to go after anything.

Its there to protect copyrights and prevent bootleggers in hong kong from releasing the new Harry Potter movie. That's it. They really, really aren't going to go after Facebook and Youtube and fanfiction.net.

Both bills are entirely directed at "ROGUE WEBSITES OPERATED AND REGISTERED OVERSEAS. "

I don't claim to be an expert on legal text, but I don't see anything remotely resembling what the "Sky is falling!" is claiming.

TLC

The TGWTG site seems quite worried about this:/
http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/thatguywiththeglasses/nostalgia-critic/33243-top-11-reasons-he-wont-review-digimon

Hiroy

Flipping my shit now.

Robby

@Thousand:

The TGWTG site seems quite worried about this:/
http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/thatguywiththeglasses/nostalgia-critic/33243-top-11-reasons-he-wont-review-digimon

"No warning, no chance to remove the infringing content. "

Yeah, they didn't read the actual document either.

Or the part about not infringing on first amendment. Or reasonable measures. Fair warning. etc.

They're just going off the over exaggerated bullet points too.

Again, the wording might be too broad and all-encompassing right now, but it has a shitload of stuff in there about protecting rights and NOT being able to abuse it, with court overturning potential and needing legit claim and such.

Seriously. I don't claim to be an expert in legalese, so I might be missing something, and I haven't studied the bill at length or anything, but… nowhere does it mention a 2,500$ fine, for instance. The "title 17" it keeps referencing is a seperate, long upheld document about copyrights and all of that remains intact too.

KaizokuFan22

@RobbyBevard:

"No warning, no chance to remove the infringing content. "

Yeah, they didn't read the actual document either.

Or the part about not infringing on first amendment. Or reasonable measures. Fair warning. etc.

They're just going off the over exaggerated bullet points too.

Again, the wording might be too broad and all-encompassing right now, but it has a shitload of stuff in there about protecting rights and NOT being able to abuse it, with court overturning potential and needing legit claim and such.

Seriously. I don't claim to be an expert in legalese, so I might be missing something, and I haven't studied the bill at length or anything, but… nowhere does it mention a 2,500$ fine, for instance. The "title 17" it keeps referencing is a seperate, long upheld document about copyrights and all of that remains intact too.

and nowhere does it mention you could go to jail for posting a video of youself or someone singing a pop song?

somehow there needs to be a bill thats legit..not all these different pieces and stuff… funny Yahoo has not mentioned this at all though.

Hiroy

Yahoo news is being smart for once? What has this world come to?

Demon Rin

Robby, it's the broad language that has people freaked out.

Basically, and this kinda is true, when you have broad language that doesn't pinpoint the problem, then it is possible for the unfair things that people are worried about to happen. Maybe not all of them, but like, Anne Rice hates fanfiction of her work and vehemently fights it. If her or someone like her complained after the law is passed, she MAY Be able to get Fanfiction.net down. That's what people are afraid of. That the broad definitions may cause copyrights holders to do, or at least try to do ridiculous stuff like that.

It may be unconstitutional, but if the law is interpreted to include something like that due to the broad language, it'll just be done and then it won't be undone till someone challenges it, and you have some kind of a fight.

Is it likely that stuff like this will happen? Perhaps not. But it's that possibility that has people freaked.

Davy Jones

How likely is this to pass?

Robby

@Demon:

Is it likely that stuff like this will happen? Perhaps not. But it's that possibility that has people freaked.

And its possible that tomorrow giant mutant cockroaches from outerspace will arrive and conquer Earth. Does that mean I'm going to start telling everyone I know this will absolutely happen? No.

I could say there is a bill in motion to get Dihydrogen monoxide banned. As we all know, it is colorless, odorless, tasteless, and kills uncounted thousands of people every year, and is in many chemical weapons, and the greedy government refuses to stop it because they make a profit off of it. I could get a shitload of signatures in a hurry to ban Dihydrogen monoxide, before I tell people its water.

Yes, there's reason to vote down the bill until it has more specific language, but its overall intent IS good. And when EVERY SINGLE EXAMPLE people are coming up with is COMPLETELY made up with no basis on anything? And ignoring everything that is already in the bill to protect the freedoms they think are going to be stolen? That sets off my bullshit alarm and tells me people need to actually look at it and make up their own minds before they freak out over a complete fantasy scenario.

Malintex_Terek

Freak outs and worst case scenarios are generally the only way you can motivate people to do something, Robby. No airliner in the world would have implemented all the time,cost intensive security checks on airplanes prior to 9/11. It's become somewhat of a running gag in debates, too, where all impacts link into an end of the world apocalypse scenario, because no judge wants to risk allowing mass starvation, global blight, armageddon, etc.

I get the heart of your argument - the concern for the law is rooted more mostly misconception and hearsay, so its activism for the wrong reasons could lead to trouble - the alternative is inaction and apathy. Laws are tough to pass but are even harder to remove, especially if clauses exist where powerful parties can abuse them (California Prop-13). A half-hearted bill with the potential for a lot of damage, even if it's just a symbolic gesture, can pose a real danger. Perhaps not as severe as the end-of-the-world cases, but noticeable enough to affect people.

Zack

Yeah. I haven't read the fine print, and broad definitions can be bad since it means they can aim the bill at other things, but they're obviously trying to make the bill off as a horrid atrocity that should never happen in any form by doing things such as comparing it to China, Iran, and Syria.

Nobodyman

@RobbyBevard:

And its possible that tomorrow giant mutant cockroaches from outerspace will arrive and conquer Earth. Does that mean I'm going to start telling everyone I know this will absolutely happen? No.

Yeah, let's leave that to the press and the religious nuts.

I could say there is a bill in motion to get Dihydrogen monoxide banned. As we all know, it is colorless, odorless, tasteless, and kills uncounted thousands of people every year, and is in many chemical weapons, and the greedy government refuses to stop it because they make a profit off of it. I could get a shitload of signatures in a hurry to ban Dihydrogen monoxide, before I tell people its water.

Someone's been watching Penn and Teller.