Congressman Jeff Flake’s response to my SOPA letter

Spoony | Jan 6 2012 | more | 
Share

Dear Mr. Antwiler,

Thank you for contacting me about H.R. 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act of 2011.

As you know, H.R. 3261 was introduced by Congressman Lamar Smith (R-TX) on October 26, 2011. The legislation would allow the Attorney General of the United States to seek injunctions against foreign websites that sell counterfeited American products. The bill also increases criminal penalties for individuals who traffic in counterfeit goods. H.R. 3261 has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary, where it is pending further consideration.

While this legislation seeks to protect intellectual property rights, I’m concerned that it may overreach and have unintended consequences. I will continue to monitor the progress of H.R. 3261 as it moves through the committee process. Please be assured that I will keep your comments in mind should the House of Representatives consider this issue.

Thank you again for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to do so again in the future. I also encourage you to visit my website, which may be found at http://flake.house.gov/

Sincerely, JEFF FLAKE Member of Congress

Share
  • Jeff Bennett

    Mmmm lazy form responses.  You should reply with a form letter as well.  Preferably one that has spots to fill in the blank.

  • http://twitter.com/Bolt_V3 Bolt Vanderhuge

    It’s a form letter, but at least it seems like Flake is concerned about it. We’ll see if that concern is enough for him to vote against it…

  • Zachary Pepper

    Well, while not ‘promising’, this certainly looks better than McCain’s. It’s at least nice to see that people realize that this will have terrible consequences, should it pass.

  • Anonymous

    Well, at least he didn’t called you a bad actor…

    Then again, he’s still with SOPA and PIPA. Fuck him.

  • Anonymous

    I am not too upset about it being a form letter since Congresspeople presumably get hundreds of letters in a day. I am somewhat hopeful since he seems to acknowledge the flaws in SOPA. Better than McCain in any case.

  • Anonymous

     Bear in mind that these people get thousands upon thousands of letters every day, many of them from crazy people or minority groups. The fact that they HAVE a form letter stating their position on the issue means that it IS important to them.

  • http://twitter.com/TheMasterSword7 Ben Alsop

    The fact that this is a form letter that is being sent out, it does show that at least someone on his staff is worried about the repercussions of the legislation.

  • http://twitter.com/xxDrCrackbone xxDrCrackbone

    It may be a form letter, but at least he’s not dismissing criticism against the bill.

  • Anonymous

    Better than McCain’s, indeed.

  • http://twitter.com/gamepopper Tim Stoddard

    I wonder if Noah would actually get mentioned during the next Congressional meeting or such

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2PQPT3S2OAI2QV2ZMDW3WXMD5E Chris

    All anyone will really get from a politician is a form letter unless you’re important.  What’s important is he seems to be leaning against it.  Say what you want about the Tea Party, but they might be what kills these.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2PQPT3S2OAI2QV2ZMDW3WXMD5E Chris

    I’m surprised how little press this gets, I’ve really only been hearing about it from internet sites.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Stephen-Martin/1596700226 Stephen Martin

    Where’s the thinly veiled insult? How are we supposed to go into nerd rage mode if he doesn’t insult the Spoony One? Sir, I demand a more condescending form letter!

  • Brandon Patton

    Finally! At least there’s one congressman who doesn’t essentially tell their constituent to f___ off! Even a form letter is better than that.

  • Grant McLellan

    When is Spoony going to realise SOPA is going to be passed and needs to realise he needs to rethink his career as an internet reviewer as well as everyone who is fighting a pointless war against SOPA

    • Ionait CBP

      In his video about his trip to D.C. with the other critics, he actually did mention that he and the other critics went home talking about alternative things they could do business-wise. The whole group seems to be handling this well, both fighting hard to stop it even if it seems impossible and looking to the future realistically. 

    • http://twitter.com/MitchZer0 Mitch Zer0

      You do know that SOPA is going to rape the internet as we know it and will get us all in prison, prevent us from getting good jobs and pretty much turn America into North Korea right?

      • Dawid Ciesielski

        Yeah, because internet is only in the USA, right? You know, the computer network designed to be de-centralised, to prevent it from being shut down by eliminating center nodes?
        Come on, don’t panic needlessly… SOPA is crazy stupid, but it won’t do that much harm to the internet, it’s only a sad comment on the condition of democracy in the US. :( “The land of the not-so-free-anymore”. :/

        • Anonymous

          You have no idea what you are talking about. SOPA breaks internet DNS. That is pretty much all it takes to ruin the internet.

          See you around on 67.225.177.119.

          • Dawid Ciesielski

            Alternative DNS roots? :/
            Okay, so SOPA could be a problem here. But “necessity is the mother of invention” – besides, it’s really hard to believe this could pass; it’s generating just too many problems (aside from probably being unconstitutional)…

          • Anonymous

            “Alternative DNS roots? :/”
            Meaning what dude :D? OpenDNS? Doesn’t matter, the law applies.

            Anyway, you’re changing your tune now a little bit. If you don’t think it will pass, that’s one thing, but SOPA is a dangerous bill. If it’s “generating too many problems” that’s because of outspoken citizens.

            “But “necessity is the mother of invention”"
            Any time anyone suggests building a new internet, their subsequent comments scare me because they want to know about everything on the network and control what gets put on it. Certain interests support it because it’s more secure or it fights piracy or whatever, but I would rather fix what we have than start over.

            “(aside from probably being unconstitutional)…”
            Well at least that would happen fairly quickly with lawyers ready to sue if it does pass. Really though the SCOTUS is the worst way to achieve a positive result out of all of this.

          • Dawid Ciesielski

            I meant alt DNS roots as in “DNS providers located outside the U.S.”, be it OpenDNS (I assume they will move outside the U.S. if SOPA passes) or anything else. It’s not exactly building new internet, it’s fixing issue that will make the system unusable. Depending on who views this kind of thing as a necessary solution, this will or will not be fixed, and there are ways to fix it. Not easy to implement, true – but doable.

            Besides, there are many big players (Google? Youtube? All user-generated-content-based web?) opposing this act, at least in current form. Pushing it also feels risky from a commercial point of view. That’s partly why I really doubt it has any chance to pass.

      • Anonymous

        I thought we were already North Korea.

        More like the Middle East, actually.  Buried under a thick layer of capitalism and blind patriotism that one is trained to stomach as a magic pill, be all end all.  Not that this hasn’t always been the case.  The people who look backwards and think there was some ideal past we lost are just as deluded.

    • Anonymous

      Yes, it’s a pointless war, alright. The people should never bother to fight against legislation that could damage their ways of life and just lie back and accept it while figuring out some new magic career they can just immediately get during a recession.

    • Anonymous

      Thank you for the revelation, oh strange traveler from the future. Clearly your not a fan of Spoony, and unlike some folks on here I don’t give two craps about that. SOPA could do far worse than merely knock Spoony off the net, though, and I’d be more concerned about it if I were you.

      • Grant McLellan

        I’ve been a fan of Spoony since 2007 actually

    • David Criscione

      I think you need to see this:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dib2-HBsF08

  • http://www.facebook.com/mtarantella Michael Tarantella

    I don’t think you guys understand how huge this is! We have Jeff Flake, the manliest man in congress on our side! I mean LOOK AT HIM!!!

    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_VZaVT03Q2G0/TD9UHjsErMI/AAAAAAAAOoY/s5HT-zPn4vQ/s1600/flake.png.jpg 

    • Sevyne

      That’s him mid-hulk transformation.

  • Darkscar

    Better than macaines at least, but only by a little

  • buecherfueralle

    Intellectual propperty rights hinder creativity. Everything should be available to everyone.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NT5YJ7EXGIBVNYX7KBZLTMA5DI Brendan McCoy

      Ripping off somebody else’s stuff isn’t creativity :P If somebody wants to reserve the rights to their own creation, that’s entirely reasonable. If they want to license it under Creative Commons or have it be public domain or whatever, it is their decision to.

      Censoring the internet in the way that has been proposed is wrong, but having people have rights over what they create is not.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2PQPT3S2OAI2QV2ZMDW3WXMD5E Chris

        Well said.  Strangely, the countries with most restrictive internet policies are also the sources of most of the piracy.  

        • http://twitter.com/athenaltena Rosemary CG

          Probably due to the forbidden fruit angle, and because the laws create a need for strategies to get around it. It’s a pretty well documented effect of prohibitive policy.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2PQPT3S2OAI2QV2ZMDW3WXMD5E Chris

      Some controls need to be there, but SOPA is too far.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NT5YJ7EXGIBVNYX7KBZLTMA5DI Brendan McCoy

      Ripping off somebody else’s stuff isn’t creativity :P If somebody wants to reserve the rights to their own creation, that’s entirely reasonable. If they want to license it under Creative Commons or have it be public domain or whatever, it is their decision to.

      Censoring the internet in the way that has been proposed is wrong, but having people have rights over what they create is not.

    • http://twitter.com/laserkidprime Bryan Johnson

      The exact opposite of a bad idea (in this case ALL rights to the c0ontent creators and NONE for the users vs no rights for content creators and all rights to users) is generally speaking also a bad idea. If theres no profit to be had in being creative than no one will be creative, and society as a whole wiill bear the damage for such.

      This doesn’t mean SOPA is good – because it along with the recent trend to kill public domain rights is damaging to the overall good of the public.

    • Anonymous

      troll post xD

  • Anonymous

    I’m no lawyer or even all that clued up on SOPA. But should it pass, wouldn’t it just mean that you have to ask the copyright holders permission to use their material? Or pay them royalties?

  • Tim Kormos

    Spoony, have you heard about this?:

    http://newyork.ibtimes.com/articles/270952/20111221/firefox-sopa-workaround-keeps-web-free-censorship.htm

    Basically, there already exist plugins that can get around the whole “de-listing” issue. If I type in “http://spoonyexperiment.com” the plugin will take me to your site even if it has been blocked.

    The obvious problem with this is, of course, that every user would need to have the plugin for it to work for them. Which I think will become quite common if this SOPA thing ever starts blocking legit sites en masse like people fear it will. Might eventually become as much of a “must have” as NoScript.

    Still, if SOPA passes and looks like it will become a threat to your businesses, I’d recommend that you or other popular contributors of Channel Awesome release a video telling your fans how to get around any bannings. Still won’t fix the “Google can’t link to us” issue, but at least it would help somewhat.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2PQPT3S2OAI2QV2ZMDW3WXMD5E Chris

      If this bill passes, within weeks there will be browsers and search engines that completely bypass anything that tries to get implemented.

      The main problem is if they charge people like Spoony with a felony for their videos.  At that point only foreign reviews will be able to continue.

      • http://twitter.com/Ben_PF89 Ben Y.

        Yes because as we all know those won’t be considered illegal as well even if it would be hard to shut said sites down.  : (

  • Anonymous

    christ, is there like a form letter generator online somewhere?

  • ORCACommander

    another form letter but at least its a person who is actually thinking about the bill

  • Renaissance_nerd

    not bad.. a step up from McCains letter.

    • Anonymous

      yes

  • Anonymous

    I haven’t really been following Spoony and TGWTG’s campaign against SOPA, but I’d just like to know one quick thing – do they really think that their websites are going to be shut down if SOPA passes?  I’m no lawyer, but I’m pretty sure that reviews fall under the fair use exception in copyright law.

    • http://twitter.com/EpicNinjaShiro Patryk Halaczkiewicz

      The problem is it’s much easier to claim a website did wrong than the website itself to fight said claim, at least that is what I gathered from other people’s problems with sopa

    • http://twitter.com/MindOST MindOST

      The biggest issue with SOPA is that copyright law is still very shaky. What counts as “fair use” usually falls to the judges decision. With SOPA, there IS no judges decsion because the government can block your website and you have no chance to defend yourself in court. 

      Even if the current administration doesn’t plan to shut down sites like TGWTG, the fact that they, or any future administration, COULD do it legally is more than enough reason to oppose the bill.

      • Anonymous

        Huh?  SOPA didn’t do away with the requirement for a court order to take down a website.  Look, no offense, but are you sure you aren’t confusing SOPA with some other law?

    • http://www.giantbomb.com/profile/cornbredx/ CornBRED-X

      They break copyright a lot already (not under fair use) which The Nostalgia chick has gone into detail about in some small corners of the internet.

      They kind of walk a thin line of legality already. This would make their lives much more difficult.

      The bigger problem, though, is how vague SOPA is and how it infringes on everyone’s rights. No appeal, no judge, no fair look. Just take it down if the copyright holder thinks you’re infringing. 

      In a perfect world the copyright holders would just write to the person they feel is infringing and tell them how and ask them to take it down or change what they think is wrong (and possibly even rationally and maturely debate it with you where you can come to a middle ground). But this isn’t a perfect world and that never happens. Just look at how sloppy youtube’s infringement policies are.

  • Anonymous

    Half of me wanted this letter to be the EXACT same letter as McCain with Flake’s name at the end.

    But then I realized I would’ve been laughing for only 2 minutes and fuming for the rest of eternity.

  • Dan Cochran

    Thank god, a politician who thinks, if only we had more of them in Arizona.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_7LVODM4H4XNAD5YDXVXBYV3WLM Nai Reilavehc

      Funny. I’d like it personally if only we had more humane and kind law enforcement officials in Arizona. My 86 year old grandfather was taken out of his car, arrested, and spent the next 6 days in jail just for attempting to “discuss” with a vile-tempered officer if he was really speeding or not. My grandmother litterally had NO IDEA where he was for 6 whole days! My grandpa was even DENIED his one phone call! I hate cops but Arizona cops are just down right scum!

      • http://twitter.com/JimMcGillicutty Tavish DeGroot

        You do know Spoony’s brother is a cop, right?

        • tim edgren

          I know, he is. Don’t say “I hate cops” and often cops are hated when they DO properly perform their duties. Don’t hate on cops just because a small percentage are terrible.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/George-Rosenbaum/100001387887487 George Rosenbaum

            I like to think of Spoony’s brother as Robocop. The music always plays in my head when Miles beats Spoony up in the Skullduggery review.

      • Anonymous

        Hating on all police officers just because a few of them don’t do their job right is pretty low.

        • David Criscione

          Trust me, it’s not just a few. Their training manuals teach them to treat everyone as a probable threat, and react accordingly.

  • http://twitter.com/ElberikBelina Jonathan Belina

    It’s not so much that the full force of the government would crash down on people like you & other reviewers on Channel Awesome, but that SOPA would give some copyright-holding jerk the ability to throw a crowbar into your lives.

  • Anonymous

    If it’s any consolation, even if SOPA does go through, there are already lawyers lining up to punt this thing into SCOTUS’s lap, where it will likely not pass Constitutional muster. 

  • http://twitter.com/laserkidprime Bryan Johnson

    The exact opposite of a bad idea (in this case ALL rights to the c0ontent creators and NONE for the users vs no rights for content creators and all rights to users) is generally speaking also a bad idea. If theres no profit to be had in being creative than no one will be creative, and society as a whole wiill bear the damage for such.
     
    This doesn’t mean SOPA is good – because it along with the recent trend to kill public domain rights is damaging to the overall good of the public.

    • http://jlandl.blogspot.com Jenny Creed

      You really think people will stop creating things ever just because it won’t make you rich and famous? It hasn’t stopped me in thirty years. . .

    • http://www.giantbomb.com/profile/cornbredx/ CornBRED-X

      Uh… you realize some of the most famous creative minds in history were poor right? I don’t know a lot about it but while he did alright I don’t believe Shakespeare was ever considerably rich. I could be wrong though.

      Anyway, money does not always matter. When it comes to creativity it will always be around. It may evolve but will never go away. It’s part of our brains in some small way to try to create things.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/George-Rosenbaum/100001387887487 George Rosenbaum

        It helps if money goes to the right place. This sounds like more like wishful thinking than anything else.

  • Anonymous

    OH NOOOOOOOO!!!!! I just thought!!!!! What about all the free porn???????? If that goes the internet will surely be a complete waste of time.

  • Anonymous

    My form letter from Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison was –”Thanks for your concern, blah blah; I believe copyright protection is a foundation for innovation.  I support Sopa, etc etc.  Thanks for your letter but suck it up and get used to change”  (the cliff notes version).  Meh!  My question is why aren’t the major media outlets covering this more?? 

    • Anonymous

      Because Big Media has everything to gain from this.
      Honestly: Who else benefits, but the copyright holders?

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/George-Rosenbaum/100001387887487 George Rosenbaum

      The Internet takes away ratings from television media. TV news WANTS the Internet to die, so everyone will start watching TV again.

    • http://www.giantbomb.com/profile/cornbredx/ CornBRED-X

      They realize they work for you, right? I don’t know, maybe where you live whoever voted for that person has more supporters then non but I wouldn’t be voting for that Senator again anytime soon with responses (even if paraphrased, I get it) like that.
      ‘Oh but no matter, you’re just one person out of millions. You don’t really mean that much’… until you start a rally and start somehow affecting their ability to have an income. God- politicians. haha

      As for the major media, ya they could care less. They don’t want the internet to be popular anyway because it’s easier for them to take all the money for TV. They don’t want things to evolve because they wont be able to maintain their vast empires if they do. It may be a several years away, but eventually TV will be the lesser medium, much like Radio was to TV.

      • http://twitter.com/Ben_PF89 Ben Y.

        “It may be a several years away, but eventually TV will be the lesser medium, much like Radio was to TV”

        Actually radio went down the road of irrelevance once media consolidation took place in 1996.  And considering its more than likely a SOPA like law will pass its kind of idiotic to non support the few remaining non commercial, non NPR, stations out there.

    • http://twitter.com/Tony7wsfk Tony

      It’s not even so simple as “TV wants the internet to die so TV doesn’t die.” Pretty much all TV networks are funded by, or owned by big corporations. The Walt Disney Company owns ABC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disney-ABC_Television_Group), so why would any news on ABC be against SOPA, something Disney promotes wholeheartedly?

  • Anonymous

    dudes name is FLAKE… so you know (sigh)

  • http://twitter.com/JimMcGillicutty Tavish DeGroot

    “Member of Congress?”

    So calling them Congressmen and Congresswomen is politically incorrect now?

    Anyway, in the past Al Franken has been supportive of EFF issues. I was rather surprised when I found out he supports SOPA and has received a fair amount from Big Content companies. Needless to say, I’ve emailed his office on this matter.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/George-Rosenbaum/100001387887487 George Rosenbaum

      Congress-person? Can’t you just say that if you have the PC stick up your ass? It’s way shorter than ‘Member of Congress’.

    • wiliamsn

      Getting upset over someone using the term “congressman” or “congresswoman” is about as silly as getting upset about someone using the term “member of congress”…

      By the way, Flake also used the term “congressman” in his response letter…

  • Anonymous

    Is Flake as much of a Flake as Fakie McCain?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/George-Rosenbaum/100001387887487 George Rosenbaum

    Anyone notice how vague Flake is when he describes the problems with the bill? Because you know, this bill “may overreach [something] and have [some kind of] unintended consequences.”

    Which is weird, because all this vagueness seems to go away when he describes his own point of view, as he talks about the alleged “counterfeited American goods” that this bill will prevent.

    Jeff Flake clearly doesn’t understand the opinions against this bill well enough to even re-describe them in any amount of detail. He doesn’t understand why we are complaining, he just wants to shut us up.

    • Mitchell Bandes

      What’s this about SOPA being defeated? Source?

    • Anonymous

      Well, if it’s true, I expect it will be all over the internet news soon.
      Still…source?

  • Anonymous

    Ah, best friends with a member of congress! You’re moving up in the world Spoony!

  • http://www.giantbomb.com/profile/cornbredx/ CornBRED-X

    It’s interesting what he did there. He basically said nothing. 
    It’s fascinating how a politician can say so much and technically not say anything.

    First he just lays it down for you (“you already know” though, right? He’s basically saying you don’t) what SOPA is and blah blah blah

    He is then vague about issues he has with it that if you (like me) just read it once think “ok maybe he agrees with me” but then you read it again and realize its worded in such a way as to look positively for you but is actually not saying one way or the other. It’s just saying he’s keeping an eye on it. He gives no real opinion on the matter one way or the other.

    You always gotta read what politicians say more then once when you get a response from them. 
    So fascinating how they fuck with your head if you’re not paying attention.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_3ED5DZPAKEOGC7SW6YN65ACVIA Alex

      Will it surprise you that Senators and Congressmen don’t actually read the bills they are given. 

      • http://www.giantbomb.com/profile/cornbredx/ CornBRED-X

        no, hahaha

      • http://twitter.com/Shantalfigueroa Shantal Figueroa

        I doubt that he even wrote this himself. He probably has a secretary with a form letter, but hey, congressmen are busy I suppose. 

    • http://evilpaul.blogspot.com/ evilpaul

      While I would like to see politicians reply with decisive “This is an outrage” type thing to SOPA that he didn’t just babble on about how imperative protecting IP rights are was heartening.

    • Anonymous

      “You answered without saying anything. -That’s- politics.” ~ Photographer guy from Lawrence of Arabia

  • http://boorat.deviantart.com/#/d4c9c3t William “BooRat” Blackshire

    It basically said the same as the other one, but at least this one he did sound like to a tiny degree like he’s on the opposing side tot he Bill! But I could be misreading ”
    While this legislation seeks to protect intellectual property rights, I’m concerned that it may overreach and have unintended consequences.”

  • meltdown2insanity

    I don’t know. Jeff Flake sounds like he WANTS to oppose the bill, but I get the feeling that he’ll go turncoat at the first sign of money or promise of power from any one who is supporting this bill.

    Maybe we should send him some *cough*female escorts*cough* to help ensure that he stays on our side. :P

  • http://evilpaul.blogspot.com/ evilpaul

    Spoony,

    I wrote lots of letters to my Congresscritters about ten or so years ago opposing the DMCA (that turned out well..) and SSSCA (yay for shit-canning that abomination) and you always will get back some boilerplate crap from them.

    I was unsurprised by the McCain reply. The guy’s a douchebag. I don’t know if he was literally born with a silver spoon in his mouth or not, but he doesn’t care about us mere plebians. I’m not a huge Jeff Flake fan, but he at least convincingly seems to care about freedom for normal people.

  • Anonymous

    Meanwhile, Congressman Smith himself happily dismisses the worldwide objection to this bill as “a vocal minority [that isn't] legitimate or large in number”

    http://www.rollcall.com/news/online_piracy_measure_brings_out_hard_feelings-211304-1.html

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_RCK6O4C4GQVJFAWYTJJ3MSKPFI vfaulkon

    Yeah, the letter’s vague. It has to be. You’ve seen how quickly other politicians will latch onto anything ever said by one of their opponents to drag them into the dirt and ruin their credibility. These guys are trained to be verrrrrrrry careful how they word just about anything they say or write, hence the constant form letters.

    With these guys, the best you can do is send them your letters. You have no way of knowing whether they read them or not, or whether or not they have an impact, but at least you did what you could (at least without resorting to violence or high explosives), and maybe that’ll be enough.

    Yeah, it sucks, but that’s politics. Always has been, always will be.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jimmy-TheFish/100000139595167 Jimmy TheFish

    Hey Spoony I have a half brother who is a copyright lawyer (or whatever) anyway he is actually a big supporter of SOPA. I couldnt really believe that anyone would support that position, but it seems the 1% does. We came up the conclusion:  if he had been born in a time when you could get arrested for stealing a loaf of bread to feed your family he would supported that, to them “theft is theft’.

  • http://twitter.com/Tony7wsfk Tony

    Just here to post a valuable link for everyone: http://youtu.be/WJIuYgIvKsc

    As Mike Mozart says, this was mostly an “inside job.” And I know, that sounds like conspiracy nonsense, but anyone who’s used CNET in the past ten years knows for a fact they promoted piracy software almost every time you went to the website. If nothing else, that’s the one fact in this video.

  • Anonymous

    I can’t really disagree with a bill that has the goal of stopping piracy. After all the sites I’ve seen that basically take tv shows and movies and put them up for free with advertisements, I can’t disagree with the need to stop it. You might think, what’s the big deal? But see those shows are made and placed on tv and the web where advertisement money goes to the creators and producers of the shows. If there is no money to make, then why make quality shows and movies. The same goes for games and other software.

    I understand completely if your concern is that it’ll infringe upon your right to due process. But it doesn’t seem that, that’s what will happen. And more or less I believe the people who are really pushing the masses to oppose it are the people making money off of pirating. Not saying channel awesome is, but they were stirred up by those type of people. Also fair use laws still appear to apply here because the bill mentions making money off of copyrighted material.

    And honestly if you guys want to make a difference politically vote for Ron Paul, he atleast is honest and very openly opposes SOPA. http://www.ronpaul.com/2012-01-06/ron-paul-slams-patriot-act-indefinite-detention-act-ndaa-and-sopa-in-new-hampshire/

    • David Criscione

      The problem is that SOPA and PIPA will do nothing to stop piracy, and do everything to hurt the rest of us. Look at all the problems DMR have caused, yet they’ve only manage to delay the pirates by a week at most. Thieves will steal, no matter how illegal you make stealing; “hey you thieves, you better not steal, because we just made it double-plus illegal!”

      • http://www.shutindating.com/ David

        It actually does make a difference. This sets forth framework that will allow for actual penalties. Not only to the accused party but the party being accused. 

        Example 1: Spoony Makes a video with content under fair use policies but the owner accuses him of violating a copyright. If the material is forced to be taken down by his host (in his case blip.tv) the accuser would be held liable for any damage financial or otherwise.

        Example 2: A site is hosting tv shows with their own advertisements and making money off of them without permission from the owners. That site would be liable for all damages incurred.

        Right now there’s not much that can be done about videos in example 2 that are hosted in other countries. This bill allows for an injunction to be filed against those parties. Which is why it should make a difference.

    • MissAshley

      Ron Paul? Honest? Maybe about everything except his racist and homophobic beliefs.

      • Anonymous

        Are you talking about the newsletters? The deal with those was the following: 20 years ago, when they were published, the people who managed Ron Paul’s political campaigns like Lew Rockwell had an idea how libertarians could be successful, an idea they called fusionism. The idea was that because there is a faction in libertarianism which is culturally conservative, called paleo-libertarianism, there was a possibility to merge it with free market conservatism. The racist and homophobic newsletters were supposed to appeal to cultural conservatives. Since Lew Rockwell especially is a paleo-libertarian himself, he thought this strategy was genius. Of course it was in reality quite dumb.
        Ron Paul himself was a rather negligent campaign manager so he let it happen, but he never personally espoused those beliefs, as you can see if you look at what Ron Paul personally said in the past decades, where he never uttered homophobic or racist things.
        I have seen people who used the newsletters as attacks on libertarianism itself which is misguided, as there are culturally progressive factions in libertarianism. Examples for this are Reason magazine or New Mexico’s former governor Gary Johnson.

        • Anonymous

          Also remember even if he was racist or homophobic (which he is not) he is a libertarian (and being libertarian is inherently anti-racist, you can’t be both) so he would respect everyones individual rights including a homosexual who wants be homosexual. He also would not restrict same sex marriage, in fact he would get government out of marriage completely which is a good thing since if i and my partner consider us to be married then we are, the government should not have a say in the matter. Ron Paul is the only one who will defend our rights and get government out of our personal and sexual lives.

    • Poipoi

      But they already had someone come out and show how the real internet pirates can get around the Sopa Bill.   And the Sopa bill allows the government to remove content from the internet without warning or real proof the people are breaking the law.

      Since your so into reading the bill, I suggest you go back and read it again.  

      • http://www.shutindating.com/ David

        Umm no just no… SOPA includes no statements regarding any of that. SOPA is targeted at stopping advertisements and payments thereof, there is nothing regarding the hosting sites or search engines or DNS removal. Also it’s primary focus is FOREIGN sites receiving payments. And again false claimants will be held liable for damages should their claims be shown to be unfounded.

        The part which mentions DNS removal is PIPA which you’re completely wrong about there being no notice. Page 7 section 15, if you care to read it, is titled Serving and Notice of Process which is actually the part that IS about Due Process. It says the requirements are that the party being accused must be served papers either through email, mail, or personally and the minimum time until the site is de-listed is 5 days which would  be enough time to resolve the issue were it true. And again it’s targeted at foreign media pirates that are blatantly making money off of advertisements shown with media they do not have the rights to sell.

        Furthermore Page 3 Section 1 begins this line describing what type of sites can be acted upon:
        Internet site that— (A) has no significant use other than engaging in, enabling, or facilitating the reproduction, distribution, or public performance of copyrighted works, in complete or substantially complete form, in a manner that constitutes copyright infringement under section 501 of title 17, United States Code; 

        So in other words, trust me I’ve read it in detail, it’s not what people are making it out to be. Again the majority of people stirring up trouble with this are pirates themselves or people who use these services.

      • http://www.shutindating.com/ David

        Oh and you’re 100% correct, removing the DNS doesn’t remove the IP it just stops a name host from resolving the IP. So for example this site’s IP is 
        67.225.177.119 ,  if you copy that into your address bar it will come to this site. BUT what is important is it prevents advertisers from paying these sites that are giving away copyrighted material. That’s what will actually stop them. Removing the DNS stops people from getting there easily and without knowing the IP address, and removing the cash flow to these sites puts them out of business. And again, it’s not targeted at sites like this. Just sites which have the sole purpose of distributing or selling copyrighted material, and specifically foreign ones.

  • Jordyn Cheslock

    While the letter doesn’t tell you much about his own opinion, it’s an okay letter. The letter is still too vague, even for a form letter. At least this guy didn’t have a thinly layered insult lol.

    I know that this is random, and I don’t mean to go on a tangent, but I don’t feel that congress fully understands or even WANTS to understand the younger generations in this country. Then again, I also feel congress doesn’t want to change anything and are fucking lazy when it comes to making decisions for the greater good, only caring about their seats, but that’s just me. This may be a dumb question, but isn’t SOPA unconstitutional? Just wondering.

    • http://www.shutindating.com/ David

      No it doesn’t deny due process or conflict with any other amendment to the constitution.

      • Jordyn Cheslock

        But wouldn’t SOPA basically censor the internet, much like the system that is used in China? Blocking certain phrases and more?

        • http://www.shutindating.com/ David

          No it is absolutely nothing like “China’s Great Firewall”. It’s meant to stop piracy not screw people over. China actually bans whatever websites it wants without any reasoning. This is talking about giving people and businesses the ability to take action against sites that are infringing upon copyright laws in a commercial sense. I highly recommend actually reading the bill. It’s not nearly as vague as it’s been made out to be. There are very clearly defined goals with the bill and means of accomplishing them. As for people talking about problems with sites like youtube there is this specific phrase in section 201 regarding streaming video. 

          (2) EVIDENCE- For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction, distribution, or public performance of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement of a copyright.

          This is just saying just because someone uploads something it doesn’t necessarily mean they meant to infringe on a copyright. In other words it was accidental and they will be offered the opportunity to correct it.

          • Jordyn Cheslock

            ….But you do realize that Spoonyone could be out of a job if this bill passes right? Think about it. He reviews bad movies/video games and uses images/footage from that in order to make his point clear. It’s not just old games and movies, but he has reviewed some recent stuff as well. You could argue that Spoonyone could get in trouble from big companies that say,

            “Hey! This internet guy is making fun of our games and it MIGHT be cutting into our profits! *Looks up website* Oh let’s just take down this website to prove our point!” and his website would go down without any kind of trial. THAT’S BAD! If anything, THIS SHOULD FRIGHTEN YOU! It’s already bad enough that you’re a Ron Paul supporter (whose a libertarian, even though we kind of need a government to run some of our shit. We tried not having a government before and it didn’t work out, JUST SAYING!), but big companies would abuse the bill’s power. 

            Piracy is an issue, yes, but the bill attacks it the wrong way. It’s a service problem. Why do you think a lot of people use Steam or similar websites in order to get games now than hunting on pirate websites for torrents? It’s a service that runs okay and sometimes they have great prices on video games. Sure, piracy still happens, but at least there’s something there to combat it.

            The only ones who would benefit from this bill are Big Businesses, NO ONE ELSE DOES! And don’t argue that the next bill is not that bad, it’s JUST AS BAD! Sorry to make you mad, but you aren’t going to change my mind about it.

      • David Criscione

        Yes it does. It bypasses due process entirely, and heavily violates at the very least our first amendment. Anyone who says otherwise has clearly not read the actual document.

        • http://www.shutindating.com/ David

          If you actually read the bill this is the table of contents for section 2

          (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.

          In other words this says that 1st amendment rights will not be violated by anything in the bill. It also states that accusers and accused will be held liable for any damages incurred. In other words if a site is falsely accused and is taken offline (which is not going to be the common practice for sites not obviously infringing upon copyrights) the accuser will be liable for any damages financial or otherwise. And finally no if anything is found to be unconstitutional such as a lack of due process, or violations of hosting agreements (like if your site’s host breaks their contract and violates their own terms) this bill will not be enacted against the accused.

          • Anonymous

            “In other words if a site is falsely accused and is taken offline (which
            is not going to be the common practice for sites not obviously
            infringing upon copyrights) the accuser will be liable for any damages
            financial or otherwise”

            Given how overloaded the court system is, I don’t find this to be much of a deterrent.

            The compensation the wrongly censored could get in court pale in comparison to the sums they could have made normally.

            If Big Media sees a new competitor, they have a tool that can effectively shut them out of the online’s public eye until it goes to court.

          • http://www.shutindating.com/ David

            This is another untrue statement. The compensation would include damages for potential and actual loss which could actually be worth more. And no this isn’t a tool for big media. It’s actually a tool targeted at foreign sites and the definition for the sites that can be taken down is Internet Site Dedicated to Infringement Activities. Which I’ve defined several times here already. But basically it’s a site that does nothing but show complete or mostly complete copyrighted material under US Codes. Therefore this won’t affect Spoony in the slightest.

          • Anonymous

            You’re pushing deeply into the realm of “circumstantial”.
            Unless you have the powers of time-travel, you have *no* objective way of calculating “future potential damages”.

            You can take the average net income of that site and multiply it for the time in which the site was down. Any other fiscal prediction-models are guesses, at absolute best.

            Since SOPA operates on punishment prior to conviction (the articles for compensation you’ve quoted are purely reactionary), my statement is still perfectly true.

            What a bill states is its purpose and what it can do in practice are NOT THE SAME THING.
            I cannot objectively see how Big Media does not unilaterally gain from this law.

  • http://profiles.google.com/danvgeg Daniel vigil

    Man 1: A hope?
    Man 2: A chance…

  • Mason Trapp

    Pretty much the same as an email I got hit back with spoony (below)

    Dear Mr. Trapp:

    Thank you for contacting me with your concerns about H.R. 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act and a similar Senate bill- S.968, the Protect IP Act. I appreciate hearing from you.
     
    These bills intend to combat copyright infringement online by permitting the U.S. Department of Justice to seek a court order against infringing websites and force search engines to block any links to said sites. It is important to protect copyrights online, but these two bills take an overly simplistic approach which will likely have serious unintended consequences. For example, H.R. 3261 and S.968 would actually undermine the use of emerging web security technologies such as DNSSEC. I believe that Congress needs to be certain that individual privacy and technological innovation is not trampled in the process of upholding copyright laws on the internet. 

    Just as I have done throughout my time in Congress, I will continue to follow digital rights management issues and work with my colleagues to ensure that internet users have choices and access without stifling innovation.  Thanks again for writing.  Please continue to keep in touch. 
      
    Sincerely,Rep. Peter DeFazio
    Fourth District, OREGON

    • nowfhelll

      It’s a Trapp!

  • Poipoi

    Vague political letter.  I have no faith in congress or the seneta.  

  • Poipoi

    (( they must be taking turns trying to bullshit us ))

    Dear Amber, Thank you very much for contacting me to express your concerns with S. 968, the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011. I value and give careful consideration to the good counsel that I receive from you and all those whom I have the privilege to represent in Congress. I refer to that good counsel as the “wisdom of the district.” As you may know, Senator Patrick Leahy introduced S. 968 on May 12, 2011. This legislationwould authorize the Attorney General (AG) or an intellectual property right owner harmed by an Internet site dedicated to infringing activities (ISDIA) to commence an action against: (1) a registrant of an ISDIA’s domain name, or (2) an owner or operator of an ISDIA accessed through a domain name. It also allows the AG to commence actions against such individuals associated with nondomestic domain names (NDN). I share your concern about the government taking a more active role in regulating the internet. The internet is the greatest example of a free market we have and I remain wary of setting precedent for government interference. At the same time, the theft of intellectual property on the internet is a real problem with significant economic consequences. I will be sure to keep your thoughts in mind should S. 968 come before the House floor for a vote.  It is important to me that I keep you fully informed on how I am representing you in Congress, so please visit my website Rigell.house.gov and sign up for my e-newsletter. I also encourage you to join my Facebook page facebook.com/RepScottRigell. Both sites feature timely video updates on the votes I am taking on the House floor. In closing, please know that I consider it a high honor to serve and represent you and your family in Congress.Mindful that I work for you, I remainYours in Freedom, Scott RigellMember of Congress

    • http://www.shutindating.com/ David

      What’s bullshit? She literally spelled out what the Protect IP Act says. Honestly if you read it you’d be surprised how it’s not nearly what it’s being made out to be.

    • http://www.shutindating.com/ David

      And just to point out since she didn’t define what ISDIA is, it’s an “Internet Site Dedicated to Infringement Activities”. That is actually defined in the bill as “A site that has no significant use other than engaging in, enabling, or facilitating the reproduction, distribution, or public performance of copyrighted works, in complete or substantially complete form, in a manner that constitutes copyright infringement under section 501 of title 17, United States Code.” So sites like this, TGWTG, channel awesome, and Let’s Play videos don’t fall into that category and won’t need to worry about it. Let’s play videos that are showing the entire game are somewhat vulnerable to the SOPA Bill but only if they’re making money off them and showing the game in it’s entirety and the game isn’t old enough to be within the realm of fair use. Then again I haven’t seen anything regarding showing someone play through a game. And realistically you could argue that it’s your work because the game doesn’t play itself and if people watch because they like how you do things then it’s much different. Plus they have to be able to show some sort of financial loss. So in all reality yea, Let’s Play videos that show the full game would probably be perfectly safe as well.

  • Anonymous

    Eh, better than McCain’s reply I guess.

  • Anonymous

    We need shorter Senator term limits..

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/George-Rosenbaum/100001387887487 George Rosenbaum

      How about 0 years? :D

      • http://www.shutindating.com/ David

        So you’re looking for one person in charge or 100% pure democracy? Because to be honest there is a lot of legislation and are you really going to vote on each individual bill throughout the year and you yourself read every part of it? We elect people who we think will serve our best interests. The system works best when intelligent people make intelligent decisions on who to elect.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/George-Rosenbaum/100001387887487 George Rosenbaum

          That was humor. Of course we need a Congress. Didn’t you see the silly smiley face. D:

          I guess sarcasm doesn’t translate well into text. We need verbal inflections to show that we are speaking in a sarcastic tone, something that text doesn’t communicate.

    • http://www.shutindating.com/ David

      I actually agree with this statement, having term limits for congress and the senate would work out great. Lobbyists have less control when someone doesn’t spend their entire life in politics.

  • http://twitter.com/OnTheGanges Kat

    Definitely better than McCain’s reply; at least this guy understands that this bill has major potential to fuck shit up real nicely. Alas, we wait.

  • Anonymous

    So is he for or against SOPA? Also, R-TX sounds like Lamar Smith is some really nasty terminator model. Actually, that would explain a lot.
    Good to see you guys are doing something about this, but don’t forget about Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA), as this excellent video points out:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhwuXNv8fJM&list=FL0DFJb5px7OXch57vQFvmQA&index=2&feature=plpp_video

    It would be awesome if when this shit gets through, all endangered sites just move on to the onion network, and all their regular visitors followed (google it if you don’t know, it was already brought up during a SOPA hearing. Senators freely admitted this might happen, and that they would be completely powerless against it). There are no domain names, but all we need is a large index where the sites’ names and links to them are listed. It would be so ironic if americans joined this network in large numbers, a network used by people who fear censorship in their country, or use it for illegal activities. And the senators would be the ones who basically promoted it.
    This bill could backfire in epic proportions

    • http://www.shutindating.com/ David

      Sure that would solve the DNS problem but what this bill is really targeting is the advertisement companies that are paying the pirate sites. If you really think that these pirate sites are providing free content out of the goodness of their hearts you’re just being completely ignorant my friend. It’s about money, and even if you can still get to the sites, if they’re not being paid to put the content up, it’s not worth it so they’ll just go away.

      • Anonymous

        The thing about the onion network was brought up during a SOPA debate, but they didn’t say wheter or not “darknet” sites could still use ads and earn money. I’ll admit I didn’t double-check and search for a loophole for Spoony should he need it, nor do I know much about the technical stuff.
        Would have been to easy to be true.

  • Anonymous

    Seems like he’s pro-SOPA but thinks it needs rewording. There’s a growing group of people who say they would support a more carefully worded SOPA bill and honestly, they’re right… sort of.

    Sites like Megavideo, Putlocker and VideoBB have entire seasons of shows like Big Bang Theory, Dexter, How I Met Your Mother, House MD etc. uploaded in their entirety as well as literally hundreds of films avaliable for free, and that’s not even counting torrents. Those sites are infringing copyright and I can understand the issues. The thing is, this bill isn’t going to stop these sites from doing this, resourceful people on the internet will just find ways around the bill. Can we honestly see 4Chan closed down? Or Pirate Bay? No. So what if the sites are blocked in USA. People who know how will create proxies, or directly connect through their IP addresses in some way, and those that don’t know how, they will get tutorials from people who do via forums and chat-rooms. The only people this bill will effect are the people legitimately using “fair use” and consumers on sites like YouTube and TGWTG.

    Really though, these companies need to consider… is online piracy really hurting me? I will be honest. I watched pirate copies of House MD, Bones, Dexter, Dark Angel, True Blood, Harsh Realm, and ReGenesis through sites like Megavideo and the like. I didn’t just watch one or two episode either… no more like 10 episodes or more. I have bought every single one of those shows on DVD now because I like the shows. Without pirates, I’d have never even heard of them. Just something to think about.
     

    • http://www.shutindating.com/ David

      Sure you may watch them and decide to buy them but out of all the people I know that use these sites (which is a lot) none of them buy any of these. Here is a real world example of how these sites work:
      If a broadcasting company broadcast another networks programming for free over the air and put their own commercials in it, in the place of those from the original network. It’s stealing, and that’s exactly what these other sites are doing. They rip movies, shows, and music from various sources and put them on their site without permission and place their own ads in and around the videos which makes them money.

      They’re hurting not only the people producing the material, but also service providers like cable and dish companies, and also the advertisement companies making the original ads and companies they endorse. And the worst part is most of these sites are overseas. So the money leaves here and goes there and never comes back. This results in more poverty here and less jobs. Whenever you watch something for free, remember, that is what you’re doing.

      • Anonymous

        I understand what you’re getting at but here in UK a lot of the time these shows are hard to come by. The US networks often don’t broadcast over here and the cable networks show the shows out of sequence and at frequently changing times.

        I honestly wouldn’t use the pirates if there where legitimate methods avaliable. I don’t pirate UK shows because I can watch them on BBC iPlayer, 4-OnDemand or LoveFilm. If I was able to use Netflix, Hulu etc. I’d probably never watch shows on the likes of Megavideo, but when I have no other option other than buying the DVD blind the companies are really hurting themselves. Rather than trying to ban everything and control everyone, just make a legal method so easy and friendly that piracy becomes too much hassle. I know people who used to pirate games all the time but thanks to Steam stopped pirating all together because Steam offers a great service and has really good prices.

        What I’m saying is SOPA will never achieve what these companies want, but international digital distribution options like an international Hulu or Netflix would… at least partially.

        • http://www.shutindating.com/ David

          Bud you can actually go to the network that produces them to watch the shows with the actual networks advertisements in them. For example just about every south park episode is on their website streaming for free you just have to watch 1 or 2 advertisements during it just like if you were watching it on TV.

          • Anonymous

            Except I can’t because they’re all USA only.

  • http://Zarrakan.com Zarrakan

    MP3.com
    MP3.com is an example of what damage internet censorship can do.

    Around 2000 various commercial music companies pressured MP3.com into selling because they couldn’t stand the idea of people buying music directly from independents. 

    Their cover story was that they believed MP3.com was allowing the posting of copyrighted material. Despite this being a blatant lie, MP3.com eventually crumpled because they did not have as much legal support as the major music companies did.

    Once Mp3.com was bought by the same major music companies that sued them, they expelled the independents, and replaced their music with commercial albums. It failed miserably due to the fact that people came to MP3.com to hear the independents that they had exiled. 

    They would eventually allow independents back 5 years later, but the damage had already been done. At that point in internet history there did not exist real alternatives to what MP3.com used to be, and mostly still do not exist. 

    MP3.com had been a beacon of independent musical expression but had been ruined by greedy rich people who did not want to compete with it.

    Without an outlet to post their music to, most former MP3.com independents had given up with very few surviving the change to move their music to a different service like ITunes.

    Internet censorship in all it’s forms destroys the internet.

    Vote NO on SOPA.

    • Anonymous

      For a similar tragedy, go on youtube and look up “MPAA South Park”. Hear what they have to say about the flippant use of the NC-17 rating on independents.

    • http://www.shutindating.com/ David

      This bill would actually protect companies like that, so I don’t really see what your point is.

      • Anonymous

        Ahahaha. Aha. Ha.

        No.

        • http://www.shutindating.com/ David

          (6) MISREPRESENTATIONS- Any provider of a notification or counter notification who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section–
          (A) that a site is an Internet site dedicated to the theft of U.S. property, or
          (B) that such site does not meet the criteria of an Internet site dedicated to the theft of U.S. property,
          shall be liable for damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, incurred by the person injured by such misrepresentation as a result of the misrepresentation.
          That is directly from the bill. So you’re saying that wouldn’t have helped Mp3.com? Cause it sounds like it would have.

  • Anonymous

    “I’m going to sign my form letters with all capitol letters. It’s gonna read ‘JEFF FLAKE’!! That’s what it’s gonna say, you’ll see!”

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_3ED5DZPAKEOGC7SW6YN65ACVIA Alex

    I got a letter from my Senator, actually both of them, and his response is almost the same as Senator Flake’s. 

  • Anonymous

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrV3SoHR3IE

    The only candidate i can trust atm. All the rest wants to screw us over.

  • Joe_the_robot moe_the_robot

    … so another “fuck you” letter, that’s all I got out of this they won’t listen.
    Really hope google and all those other sites black out for a week in protest, because
    these dumbass american politicians won’t listen.

  • Michael Butcher

    I emailed both my senators and my district representative about taking concern with these bills, I never got a legitimate reply from any of them.  Just an automated response email from ONE senator.

  • http://twitter.com/moofers_mufa Matthew Clarke

    Another fuck you response, well done JEFF FLAKE you suck as much as the last douche.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jean-Dickinson/100002641992937 Jean Dickinson

    Yeah same response here in Alabama as well. There all payed off by big business hun. T-T

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QPY55WROZXEUPXOA6SLLRI33RM TLLL

    Spoony, I strongly urge you to contact the ACLU, if you have not already done so, which opposes this legislation. Operate on the assumption that this legislation will pass, which I think I very well may. Operate ALSO on the assumption that its constutionality will be challanged in court by the ACLU and a host of other entities and organizations upon whose behalf the ACLU would act, which it most certainly will.  They may even try to get an injunction to prevent the enforcement of the law, once passed, until its constitutionality has been determined. You may be worried that if you get involved in a court action will cost an arm and a leg; however, that should not be the case if you are part of an ACLU action. Contact the local oiffice, explain your situation and fears, and hear what they say. They shouldn’t give you the B.S. that will inevitably be expected of the legislature.

    • http://www.shutindating.com/ David

      Hey you’re one of those guys that never even bothered to try and read the bill. You just kinda jump on the band wagon huh? As it turns out your violating the constitution assertion is completely BS. It says right in the table of contents that the bill will not violate 1st amendment rights a.k.a freedom of speech/expression so Spoony is safe, and it will also can not infringe upon constitutional rights. Funny enough this bill is focused on FOREIGN SITES, in fact 90% of what is in it is about FOREIGN SITES. Thank you and good night. By the way ACLU supports the Ku Klux Klan, Neo-Nazis, the North American Man/Boy Love Association, and the Westboro Baptist Church. Some civil liberties actually shouldn’t be defended.

      • Zachary Cantrell

        Actually, free speech should be defended, the Ku Klux Klan, Neo-Nazis, the North American Man/Boy Love Association, and the Westboro Baptist Church have the right to SAY whatever they want. It’s when they act on it that they start causing problems.

        Such is the beauty and curse of free speech, even the reprehensible and morally bankrupt have things to say. 

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/George-Rosenbaum/100001387887487 George Rosenbaum

          And we can laugh at them for their stupid opinions. Because disagreement is an opinion too.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QPY55WROZXEUPXOA6SLLRI33RM TLLL

        “By the way ACLU supports the Ku Klux Klan, Neo-Nazis, the North American Man/Boy Love Association, and the Westboro Baptist Church.”

        Yes, I shoudl defer my opinion to the expert researcher who became an overnight expert by ripping stuff direct from wikipedia. congragulations (sp) on your legal expertise.  

        “As it turns out your violating the constitution assertion is completely BS. It says right in the table of contents that the bill will not violate 1st amendment rights a.k.a freedom of speech/expression so Spoony is safe, and it will also can not infringe upon constitutional rights. Funny enough this bill is focused on FOREIGN SITES, in fact 90% of what is in it is about FOREIGN SITES. Thank you and good night.” 

        Sigh and yawn. Let me explain something very simple and elementary to you David.
        Just because the intent of a bill as it is written is not to violate constitutional rights, this does not mean, that it does  not have such consequences. Or that language will not be employed to legitimate a bill that has such effect.  

        Just because a bill states that it will not violate the constitution, that does not mean that it will not do so. You need to look at the mechanisms for implementation. Here are some examples of what I mean.

        Take for example “Separate But Equal” facilities for blacks and whites. This was ruled unconstitutional because, by the very nature of its implementation, it was unconstitutional. The language of such legislation, to avoid prosecution under the Civil War Amendments, was always written in such a manner that if you knew nothing else, it would appear that such legislation was perfectly constitutional. Moreover, recourse for action in the event that facilities were not equal was often outlined in such laws. 

        In reality, though the implementation of both Separate but Equal and the real lack of implementing a true system of appeals  illustrated the racist nature of such language.

        The exact same thing happens with legislation designed to implement prayer in school and teach some version of creationism. 

        No one writes a bill stating “this violates the constitutional rights of citizens” David. DUH!  

        The implementation of this bill is the concern because you have a highly technical field, involving powerful interests, many of whom are often involved in agency capture, in our interest-based political system. There is plenty room of abuse here, and, as the law is written, by its nature, the implementation of the bill will probably result in a serious violation of constitutional rights.

        It is at the level of implementation we find most violations of constitutional rights, not to mention most policy failures 

         

        • http://www.shutindating.com/ David

          Sigh and yawn, another moron who thinks he has a clue. I didn’t read it off Wikipedia because the Wikipedia definition is highly biased at the moment. Look at the actual legislation. The part about not being able to be unconstitutional or violate 1st amendment rights isn’t just a blurb. It’s a saving clause in pretty much every section of the bill. Which means that if it does any of those things then the bill becomes invalid in a case it is being used in.

          Way to bring race into something that it has nothing to with also bud. I love how you ACLU loving chumps act like you can bring up anything from the time of segregation and slavery and it somehow makes your point stronger. It does not, it in fact only shows that you yourselves enjoy the idea of racism because you just won’t let it go.

          I really could care less if religious people want to talk about creationism in a private school, because that’s not based on any kind of scientific theory. Evolution however is something that is generally covered in Biology since it’s a generally accepted hypothesis, and that’s all that needs to be taught in a public setting. If schools taught every religion, well their wouldn’t be much time left to teach anything else.

          And yes please tell me to look at the mechanisms cause obviously you have. I challenge you to actually FIND IN THE BILL these “mechanisms” that will violate your rights. Hell I challenge you to FIND IN THE BILL parts that don’t refer SPECIFICALLY to foreign sites or ISDIA’s. Please do that and I’ll admit that you’re right.

          Please refrain from making statements until you actually have the ability to think for yourself and not just jump on bandwagons.

          • http://twitter.com/AJRimmer5 AJRimmer

            Oh look, someone who thinks politicians won’t abuse or maliciously misconstrue the writing of this bill in order to further their own agenda. How cute. Dude, if you haven’t been paying attention to Washington for, oh, the past decade or two. And actually believe politicians won’t misuse or abuse this bill you obviously aren’t paying attention.

            You also make the claim credit card companies are against this bill in one of your other posts, however you fail to mention Google, Youtube, Facebook, Twitter and a host of other social media and search sites are against SOPA.

          • http://www.shutindating.com/ David

            One of the youtube co-founders opposes it not youtube in general. Google is a site that operates an advertisement company though I doubt they’d allow pirating sites to use their adsense program. It’s not a claim credit card companies are against the bill it’s a fact http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3261/money. I didn’t mention all the opposers cause it didn’t have an relevance with what I was saying.

            But I agree politicians generally suck and government involvement in every facet of our lives is a bad thing. But what the government is supposed to do is protect the rights of businesses and individuals and that’s what these bills do.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/George-Rosenbaum/100001387887487 George Rosenbaum

            “But what the government is supposed to do is protect the rights of businesses and individuals and that’s what these bills do.”

            That’s a pretty big assumption. Maybe their protecting the entertainment industry, who doesn’t want to compete with a relatively cheap and accessible medium.
            After all, John Cornyn (the guy leading this push) received funding from the entertainment industry to advertise himself and get into office. So doesn’t it make sense that John would support a bill that cripples the Internet?

            Also, the bill prevents anyone from using contnet without permission, under any circumstance. If you wanted to make a review for a video game that included screenshots of the game’s content, you would have to ASK PERMISSION!!! What do you think they are video game production companies are going to say if you ask for permission to review their game?

            Fatass Games Incorporated: “Sure, you can use those screenshots. Just make sure you give us a GOOD review. Yeah, our game sucks donkey balls, but you better recommend it to our customers, okay?”

            See how the censorship starts? And this happens to movie reviewers too. So this is something that every video game company and Hollywood production company benefits from.

          • http://www.shutindating.com/ David

            Man I have not seen literally any of that spelled out in the bill. But what it does literally say is that it has to be a “internet site that is distributing, processing, or publicy performing complete or mostly complete copyrighted material” and it also excludes material that is under fair use. So I disagree, that’s not at all what they’re saying.

            Reviews of video games are a rough subject anyway, obviously just a review with video clips isn’t the complete or mostly complete game. But doing a let’s play would be arguably a mostly complete form. But in the long run the point of a game is to play it, not watch it. So that could go either way.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/George-Rosenbaum/100001387887487 George Rosenbaum

            “Mostly complete” That’s disturbingly vague for me. Vague enough for lawyers to hold key lawsuits the decide what that means in court. Perhaps this should be spelled out.

            There are also freedoms outside of free use that this bill doesn’t protect. Like the freedom of review and parody. For the reasons specified in my previous post.

            Here’s a quote from Techdirt.
            URL:http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110510/13285714230/son-coica-protect-ip-act-will-allow-broad-censorship-powers-including-copyright-holders.shtml

            “Beyond just requiring these other service providers from blocking service, this new law will require search engines to censor sites out of their index.”

            This is a lot like China’s Golden Shield, except it needs to tried in court first. Which leads me to my another problem: how easy prosecution will be. Again, from the same TechDirt article:

            “[B]eyond just letting the Justice Department declare that a site is “rogue” and then getting a court order that would require all sorts of third parties censor that site, this new law will also let rights holders take action. [U]nlike COICA, PROTECT IP has a “private right of action.”

            I hate how this bill has a ‘guilty until proven innocent’ attitude. It also targets the entire search engine, instead of just the infringing website:

            The Act similarly authorizes a rights holder who is the victim of the infringement to bring an action against the owner, registrant, or Internet site dedicated to infringement, whether domestic or foreign, and seek a court order against the domain name registrant, owner, or the domain name. 

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QPY55WROZXEUPXOA6SLLRI33RM TLLL

            “ Look at the actual legislation. The part about not being able to be unconstitutional or violate 1st amendment rights isn’t just a blurb. It’s a saving clause in pretty much every section of the bill. Which means that if it does any of those things then the bill becomes invalid in a case it is being used in.”

            LMAO! Allow me to explain something to you. Those statements are meaningless. Why? Because whether the bill violates constitutional rights or not will be open to interpretation once a law is passed and thus have to be settled in court. For any controversial legislation, supporters will argue it does not violate such rights even if it does, and opponents will argue that the bill does when it may not. 

            Also, again, you confuse “intent with outcome”. Just because the bill, in its current form (by the way, which can easily change very dramatically when in committee and subcommittee or from amendments proposed by supporters and detractors) is directed at foreign sources, that does not mean it will be implemented as such.  

            “And yes please tell me to look at the mechanisms cause obviously you have. I challenge you to actually FIND IN THE BILL these “mechanisms” that will violate your rights. Hell I challenge you to FIND IN THE BILL parts that don’t refer SPECIFICALLY to foreign sites or ISDIA’s. Please do that and I’ll admit that you’re right.”
            THE BURDEN OF PROOF RESTS ON THE LEGISLATION, NOT ME! . 

            This is the only other remotely relevant statement you have made. The rest of what you said was a pointless rant and dIatribe that missed the point. 

            Again, THE BURDEN OF PROOF RESTS ON THE LEGISLATION, NOT ME! . The legislation must demonstrate that it will not be abusive by spelling out how it will be implemented in a manner that doesn’t do this. This bill does not in my opinion and that of many others. 

            Once a bill has been passed, the mechanisms for implementation, unless spelled out in that bill, are generally left to street level bureaucrats, and they will consult with private interests in the crafting of the bill, which is fine. In fact, even when spelled out ,they are often altered, often by necessity or by the general nature of legislative language. BUT those interests that are in the best position are, guess what? Those who support the bill. By far! They will push the implementation of the bill as far as they can, and guess what? They are backed by the congressional supporters of the bill, who again, are in a much better position to get as restrictive a variant of the implementation of the bill passed as possible. Now add in the highly technical nature of the subject matter and the broad nature of the language and viola. There are serious dangers for abuse!

            Kid, you really don’t understand how Washington works.

      • Anonymous

        Some of the civil liberties shouldn’t be protected?  That’s just silly.  I strongly disagree with the KKK and other organizations that espouse an ideology of hatred but I will defend to the death their right to say it.  Freedom of speech exists to protect unpopular speech.  You don’t need to pen a law to protect people’s right to say “Kittens are adorable”.  Very few people are going to argue that point.  It’s people saying the unpopular things that need protection. 

        • http://www.shutindating.com/ David

          Anyone who defends a group that protests funerals because they think their god kills people in the military, people who gave their lives protecting these fuck wads’ ability to say that shit, is evil. The people mourning the loss of their friends, children, husband, wives, sons, or daughters, have the right to a funeral without stupid ass politics and religious nuts.

          • Anonymous

            Then what sort of precedent do you set for “Free speech”?
            It isn’t like criminal laws, which are objectively based on commonly accepted necessities for society to function.

            But speech, language, and their social context all change over time.
            I hate the Westboro Baptist Church. I find them to be among the absolute worst kind of publicity-driven filth in the country.

            But I also know that if we censor their speech and their protest beyond the objective boundaries of slander and libel, we open up the legal floodgates for sedition and censorship.

            Legal precedent is a powerful thing. Intent and practice are not one in the same.

          • http://www.shutindating.com/ David

            I honestly don’t find what the Westboro Baptist Church does as being constitutional. Libel and Slander are still in the constitution, particularly against the US military and could be considered treason.

            I just find it interesting, smokers have to go outside because people have a right to fresh air, but apparently smokers don’t have the right to smoke. When you have two opposing ideals, someone’s rights are going to get trampled.

          • Anonymous

            Constitutionality for the WBC’s activities falls in part under the “beliefs”.

            They have crafted a fine art of protesting via statements, that skirt the legality of slander; getting off on technicalities (a fellow student of mine, who studies law dissected the topic before. If I can find the reference, I’ll post it here) despite professing what I can only describe as “hate speech”.

            (Part of it has to do with whether the Constitution protects speech against sexual preference or not. I do know that discrimination and hate speech related to age is no longer tolerated, as of last year.)

            As for Treason, no. The WBC are obnoxious and hateful, but they don’t even begin to approach treason. Treason is a crime that is incredibly difficult to prove conclusively in a court of law, primarily because by the time one has actually committed Treason, chances are they have already committed several other federal offenses (or have fled the country).
            In the absence of those other offenses you are left with INTENT, and intent alone is incredibly difficult get convictions for in court.

            Smoking vs Non-smoking has objective, scientific evidence backing it up,
            and it is a proven health hazard. The main grey area is whether second
            hand smoke is hazardous to OTHERS, and that creates potential for
            liability, as others do not have a choice in the air they breathe when someone lights up.

            Of course, when you impose restrictions on mutually-exclusive activity pairs, one must win and the other must lose. That’s kind of how laws work.

          • http://www.shutindating.com/ David

            You’re right, and I was thinking more along  the lines of sedition about the treason part. Since what they were saying was against the military, and by proxy the government it just about fits.

  • Eric Wilkinson

    I don’t see what you guys are expecting wanting personalized responses. Of course their automated, you know how many hundreds of letters these people must be getting? I only complain that he isn’t more up-front with his thoughts.

  • http://twitter.com/PofB Process bel

    Well he seems a little more invested at least. Mccain was more of a “fuck you answer”. This: this was a little more leaning towards “maybe youre right”.

    • http://www.shutindating.com/ David

      It’s an automated response because they’re probably getting a ton of messages about this stuff by misguided individuals who clearly have not read either piece of legislation. At some point you get tired of listening to the same arguments that are based on speculation and sensationalism. Just read the bills bud if you’re really worried. You can find sopa in the online library of congress and protect ip at open congress.

      Also if you’re one of the types to support things like Occupy Wallstreet which I would think you are, the fact that credit companies like Visa and American Express oppose the bills should be of interest you. Essentially these banks don’t like it cause it cuts down on the fees they’ll receive from the advertisers paying these pirate sites.

  • https://me.yahoo.com/a/BTQI2j5pzJTC9kG4mg4A_FTG_htQXQw-#b039e tambi

    Geeze spoons, If I could only contack you??????? still love ya so…..

  • Anonymous

    congrats to David for being a prick and trying to “out-intellect” almost every other person who posted here. jeesh. i’ve never seen so many posts on on thread. go jerk off or something. there’s more to life than trolling people and correcting them with your genius. now send me a naked pic. if you respond to this, i will take it as flirting. xoxo — JOHN

    • http://www.shutindating.com/ David

      I’m being a prick and trolling? Why because I disagree with people making false statements. I actually have been trying to be friendly and I’ve stayed out of this until now because I didn’t care. But now that people are just openly making up consequences and falsehoods about this it’s getting on my nerves. All I’ve been doing is replying to people who say things that are wrong and showing what the bill actually says. If that’s trolling or “out-intellecting” since I know how to read I guess I am. I’m used to reading government regulations after 8 years in the military and the pic is on the way.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QPY55WROZXEUPXOA6SLLRI33RM TLLL

        “ Look at the actual legislation. The part about not being able to be unconstitutional or violate 1st amendment rights isn’t just a blurb. It’s a saving clause in pretty much every section of the bill. Which means that if it does any of those things then the bill becomes invalid in a case it is being used in.”LMAO! Allow me to explain something to you. Those statements are meaningless. Why? Because whether the bill violates constitutional rights or not will be open to interpretation once a law is passed and thus have to be settled in court. For any controversial legislation, supporters will argue it does not violate such rights even if it does, and opponents will argue that the bill does when it may not. Also, again, you confuse “intent with outcome”. Just because the bill, in its current form (by the way, which can easily change very dramatically when in committee and subcommittee or from amendments proposed by supporters and detractors) is directed at foreign sources, that does not mean it will be implemented as such.  ”And yes please tell me to look at the mechanisms cause obviously you have. I challenge you to actually FIND IN THE BILL these “mechanisms” that will violate your rights. Hell I challenge you to FIND IN THE BILL parts that don’t refer SPECIFICALLY to foreign sites or ISDIA’s. Please do that and I’ll admit that you’re right.”THE BURDEN OF PROOF RESTS ON THE LEGISLATION, NOT ME! . This is the only other remotely relevant statement you have made. The rest of what you said was a pointless rant and dIatribe that missed the point. Again, THE BURDEN OF PROOF RESTS ON THE LEGISLATION, NOT ME! . The legislation must demonstrate that it will not be abusive by spelling out how it will be implemented in a manner that doesn’t do this. This bill does not in my opinion and that of many others. Once a bill has been passed, the mechanisms for implementation, unless spelled out in that bill, are generally left to street level bureaucrats, and they will consult with private interests in the crafting of the bill, which is fine. In fact, even when spelled out ,they are often altered, often by necessity or by the general nature of legislative language. BUT those interests that are in the best position are, guess what? Those who support the bill. By far! They will push the implementation of the bill as far as they can, and guess what? They are backed by the congressional supporters of the bill, who again, are in a much better position to get as restrictive a variant of the implementation of the bill passed as possible. Now add in the highly technical nature of the subject matter and the broad nature of the language and viola. There are serious dangers for abuse!” Look at the actual legislation. The part about not being able to be unconstitutional or violate 1st amendment rights isn’t just a blurb. It’s a saving clause in pretty much every section of the bill. Which means that if it does any of those things then the bill becomes invalid in a case it is being used in.”LMAO! Allow me to explain something to you. Those statements are meaningless. Why? Because whether the bill violates constitutional rights or not will be open to interpretation once a law is passed and thus have to be settled in court. For any controversial legislation, supporters will argue it does not violate such rights even if it does, and opponents will argue that the bill does when it may not. Also, again, you confuse “intent with outcome”. Just because the bill, in its current form (by the way, which can easily change very dramatically when in committee and subcommittee or from amendments proposed by supporters and detractors) is directed at foreign sources, that does not mean it will be implemented as such.  ”And yes please tell me to look at the mechanisms cause obviously you have. I challenge you to actually FIND IN THE BILL these “mechanisms” that will violate your rights. Hell I challenge you to FIND IN THE BILL parts that don’t refer SPECIFICALLY to foreign sites or ISDIA’s. Please do that and I’ll admit that you’re right.”THE BURDEN OF PROOF RESTS ON THE LEGISLATION, NOT ME! . This is the only other remotely relevant statement you have made. The rest of what you said was a pointless rant and dIatribe that missed the point. Again, THE BURDEN OF PROOF RESTS ON THE LEGISLATION, NOT ME! . The legislation must demonstrate that it will not be abusive by spelling out how it will be implemented in a manner that doesn’t do this. This bill does not in my opinion and that of many others. Once a bill has been passed, the mechanisms for implementation, unless spelled out in that bill, are generally left to street level bureaucrats, and they will consult with private interests in the crafting of the bill, which is fine. In fact, even when spelled out ,they are often altered, often by necessity or by the general nature of legislative language. BUT those interests that are in the best position are, guess what? Those who support the bill. By far! They will push the implementation of the bill as far as they can, and guess what? They are backed by the congressional supporters of the bill, who again, are in a much better position to get as restrictive a variant of the implementation of the bill passed as possible. Now add in the highly technical nature of the subject matter and the broad nature of the language and viola. There are serious dangers for abuse!Kid, for soone who’se read military regs for 8 years you really don’t understand how the political side of Washington works. In case you haven’t noticed, the military justice system is just a wee bit different.  
        itReply

        • http://www.shutindating.com/ David

          Yes call me kid cause that makes you more adult and credible. Actually you simple won’t consider a view point other than your own. Initially I didn’t like the idea of these bills either, but then I read them. They go into detail about everything you’d complained about, but you don’t care. All you want to do is complain which makes you a troll. So I’m finished speaking with you.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QPY55WROZXEUPXOA6SLLRI33RM TLLL

            If you don’t want to listen  to me, perhaps you should consider the concerns of 110 law professors who wrote an open letter to Congress opposing SOPA/Protect IP:    

            http://www.scribd.com/doc/72807693/Law-Profs-Letter-Against-SOPA-PROTECT-IP
            Or are they trolls who just complain too? Is that anyone who disagrees with you simply because they don’t take a bill at face value, but also try to assess the impact it has on constitutional rights in terms of implementation?
               
            If the law gets struck down in whole or part, I guess we’ll see we’ll see who was right, won’t we?

            Or as Floyd Abrams, First Amendment litigator, and the guy leading the charge for the MPAA himself was forced to admit while also claiming it would preotect free speech:

            “Regardless of the particular standard or definition of foreign
            infringing sites, court-approved remedies under the Stop Online Piracy
            Act may result in the blockage or disruption of some protected speech.
            As discussed above, the bill provides a range of injunctive relief is
            available, with a court making the final determination as to whether and
            how to craft relief against a website operator or owner or third party
            intermediaries. When injunctive relief includes blocking domain names,
            the blockage of non-infringing or protected content may result. ”

          • http://www.shutindating.com/ David

            They have 2 valid concerns that I disagree with. I don’t agree with everything in the bill either. And I do believe that piracy needs to be stopped. The only real thing I would change is for some parts to be clarified.

            I also don’t believe that these “evil” corporations you keep mentioning are going to have the resources or desire, to go after small fish that would most likely result in them paying damages anyway. Litigation costs money and time, and with all the pirating sites out there it would be a long time before they even considered bothering small sites like this.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QPY55WROZXEUPXOA6SLLRI33RM TLLL

            You seem to assert that I view the corporations as “evil”. This is incorrect. They will simply do what is in their interest. Much of the cost of going after people would or could be be borne by the agencies or courts used to employ and implement policy. And market control is worth short term profit loss. This is especially important given how central marketing is to media products, and how the neutralization of potentially negative media messages is attractive. Moreover, you wouldn’t need to go after many, you could just create a couple examples to encourage the others. That’s one reason why abuse would hurt legal sites the most-they want to stay on the right side of the law to begin with, and with the appearance of guilty until proven innocent that much of the implementation of the legislation carries, people will get scared off. And that’s only one way. Nor are my concerns anti-business or anti-capitalist-far from it. I am concerned, among other things, over how abuse can be employed to stifle entrepreurship. Anything that may further Monopolization and Oligopolization (sp)is bad.

      • Anonymous

        When you take a condescending tone and call people “bud,” they tend to care less about what you actually have to say, regardless of whether you’re right or not, especially when emotions are running high like they are with this bill.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/George-Rosenbaum/100001387887487 George Rosenbaum

        The military is the most efficient part of the government. You have only seen the government’s GOOD side.

        Though that’s more than most can say. At least you’ve seen ONE side. Unfortunately, the US military doesn’t have anything to do with a copyright related bill.

        • http://www.shutindating.com/ David

          Sorry to break this to you, but no the military is nowhere near the most efficient business model in the government. A good example is we have people that are military police. On my side known as master at arms. Instead of using these guys as gate guards and for traffic patrols, they hire better paid civilians. This is not efficient in the slightest.

          But the reason why this is relevant, is that the UCMJ (uniform code of military justice) is written much the same as all the other laws from the government. And the majority of our pubs are written in the same dry format.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/George-Rosenbaum/100001387887487 George Rosenbaum

            I need to stop listening to my gun-nut friends, then.

          • http://www.facebook.com/rabblesthebinx Brian Frang

            Dude, the USMJ may be WRITTEN in the same type of jargon, but unless you have a law degree, I highly doubt you waded through the over 200 pages of material in the full bill.

      • Kyuubi Kitsune

        Actually, I’ve been reading your posts too, and you do tend to call people “moron” or “one of those [types/guys]” when they disagree with your point of view, even if their reply was penned without insults or assumptions about your personal character.  I believe that is what is meant by “trolling.”  If you do not want that label, I would suggest not assuming people are stupid or “morons without a clue” and especially not openly stating it to start off your rebuttal to their comments.

        Ciao!

    • Anonymous

      Uh, disagreeing with someone does make them a prick.
      Nor is David being unreasonable with his choice or language or tone.

      It’s a good thing we have a rational opposing point of view, because it elevates the discussion and forces us to think a little more carefully, rather than just following popular opinion blindly.

      Costly mistakes have been made under the best of intentions, because people did not stop and evaluate just what it was they were doing (read about student riot protests during the 1970s for the most direct/blunt of examples).

  • http://twitter.com/TheFinalEnding The Fallen One

    Sec 104, fair use will still hold up, need I say more.

    • Anonymous

      Fair Use is worthless.  It provides no protection whatsoever, especially against DMCA complaints.  Just look at Youtube.  If a company files a copyright claim against one of your videos, and you file a counter-claim stating its okay to upload because of Fair Use, your video will get removed and you’ll receive a copyright strike. 

    • Jesse Melat

      Still leaves it open to interpretation by he judicial system…I don’t think it will _quite_ be the internet apocalypse everyone is chicken-littling themselves over, but I’d still rather not give the DMCA-happy folks any more tools than they already have.

      They have enough money; and no one believes their river-crying anymore.

  • Alexandre Lahos

    Same shit, different stance.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/George-Rosenbaum/100001387887487 George Rosenbaum

      Nah, it’s the same stance. It just kisses more ass.

  • Anonymous

    Why do I get the feeling that the congressman in question doesn’t even know or see the reply message?

    • Jesse Melat

      It’s more than likely that it was penned by an aide.   It’s more or less, sadly, how it _has_ to work, or they’d do nothing but tend to their mailbag all day.

      I used to work as an intern for Arlen Specter, and that’s how it’s handled.  The _number_ of yays or objections are generally passed on the Congressman or Senator, however, and that’s why doing this sort of thing can/will still help.

  • Ineedballs

    Once again, another auto message with a different name at the start because they can’t hold a pen or type the damned thing without touching their dick.

    I’m sure if you get another message from a congressman, Spoony, it’s pretty much gonna be ANOTHER automated message.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/George-Rosenbaum/100001387887487 George Rosenbaum

    “Dear Mr. Antwiller,

    All of you young rapscallions stole the copyright owners’ imaginary money. Now I’m going to have to take away your real freedom. I’m sure you can see why this is fair, because of the phony information I supplied you with.

    Hugs and Kisses,
    Jeff Flake”

    • http://twitter.com/Ben_PF89 Ben Y.

      “Now the government has to take away your real freedom.”

      Call me crazy but I’d be more concerned when the government starts shutting down any form of media because it doesn’t like what it said. 

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/George-Rosenbaum/100001387887487 George Rosenbaum

        That is real freedom…in this case, the right to free speech.

    • http://www.shutindating.com/ David

      It’s not about video’s like spoony’s. His are fine because they fall under fair use since they are reviews or criticisms. Fair use it based off of a 4 point check.

      Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:
      1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
      2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
      3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
      4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors. 

      The real bill is about foreign sites blatantly ripping off music, movies, and tv shows and reposting them with their own advertisements inserted. If that isn’t theft I don’t know what is.

      • Jesse Melat

        Like you, I think the spaz attack everyone’s having over this is….somewhat irrational.   But, I still have no desire to see his pass.   The potential for “creative” (mis) interpretation on the part of the judiciary branch, and the fact that most of the DMCA-dealing, copyright-happy faction that’s funded this spicy little bill …really has enough money as it is, and that they’re crying over not being able to afford that second summer home in Miami….really leaves me with little sympathy for your (their) cause, unfortunately.

        I download shit illegally almost daily.  If it’s good, I buy it…if it’s not, then delete it and sleep soundly knowing that I’ve not misappropriated _my_ money supporting shitty art.   It’s the people that _have_ done so that bear the greater scar on their souls (and not to mention their wallets), in my opinion.

        If your intention is to dissuade the internet at large from their SOPA/PIPA witch-hunt, I have to say: you’re not doing a very good job.   Reviewing a certain platitude about flies, honey and vinegar might do you some good.  If anything, what you’re doing right now does nothing but encourage what you’re fighting against.  From where I stand, I encourage you to continue, as I’d personally rather not see this thing signed into law.

        I’m not accusing you of being so, but I gotta say, if I were to embark on a campaign to encourage SOPA hate/hysteria….doing what you’re doing would be up there on my list of strategies.  Nothing like a good, solid, and tangible enemy to rally the troops, eh?

        • http://www.shutindating.com/ David

          Basically. More or less I’m just debunking myths, and stating how it is wrong for people to host illegal material. If you’re an american and you’re downloading illegal things you’re basically taking money from every facet of industry. From the producers of the material itself, to the service companies that provide such as cable, satellite and internet, as well as the actual printing companies. You’re even sending money over seas and lowering the value of the money in your pocket.

          It’s all well and good if you buy everything you steal, but how many people do you really think buy everything they try?

          • http://twitter.com/Kanta_Mizuno Ryan Alarie

            And how many people do you think would have bought everything they stole? While there is obviously a chunk of people who download illegal movies that do so instead of paying for it, there is also a sizeable portion that are making the choice between not watching it at all or watching it for free. In the case of TV shows, they may be paying for cable anyway, but because they lack useful PVR/On Demand services they illegally download the show so they can watch it at their leisure instead of having to watch it when it’s on. The loss figures grossly exagerate the ammount of money the industries are losing as they unfairly assume that EVERY download would, in a world with say, SOPA in place, be someone paying full price for that product. That’s hugely misleading.

      • http://twitter.com/Kanta_Mizuno Ryan Alarie

        That would be why Doug didn’t have to take down his review of the Room. Oh wait he did. Considering that the bill is effectively a beefed up version of the Cease and Desist order, the same issues would still come up. And the fair use is a fine argument, but if they have to go to court to prove it, the time spent where the domain name is cut off and/or the advertising money is shut off, etc … would easily bankrupt most people like Spoony.

      • Matthew Eis

        Because nothing on the internet ever got taken down as copyright infringement that was fair use?

        Seriously Youtube is already a great example oh how corporations abuse the system to remove serious artistic endevours such as AMV’s, Nostalgia Critic, Comedy Fan Series (such as Team Four Star or LittleKuriboh).

        I used to run a news show, on youtube. It did a 3 min episode every day. Every couple of weeks our youtube account was getting banned, until our fair use claim was processed through and the videos brought back up. Then it would keep happening over and over.

        Now lets imagine blip.tv started doing that. It would make running a site like this a nightmare. Our news show, make 40-100 viewers on youtube and we were getting harassed like that, now imagine if you were like spoony and got 200,000+ views a video.

  • wiliamsn

    With all due respect, I don’t care for this “Jeff Flake” person’s review
    style…

    • http://www.youtube.com/thefaustianman Faust

      I thought he was back? Now’s he featuring even lamer-ass reviews (if that was somehow possible) about Soap, I’m guessing a shitty Fight-Club remake. Or is some new character that he’s going to introduce in an arc. Pretty lame Noah with the last name “Flake”.

      Spoony, if you cared about your viewers you could have come up with a better chaacter. Hell even, “Noah Body” would have been better.

      But at least he’s better than Titus or the black lantern or Spoonybum.

      • http://twitter.com/kyriakitriti Alexandria White

        Are you a troll, or just ignorant?

  • http://twitter.com/CasWegkamp Cas Wegkamp

    I am curious about the letter you sent, Spoony. Post that too!

  • Anonymous

    Seems like a whole subculture of the internet is learning how politic works by this “SOPA”.
    I really appreciate the efforts to stop this law, but this is not about culture, it is about economics.
    American movie studios, television channels and music labels are paying taxes, hopefully, and their property is protectet by the american law. So they can press senators to act, bacause every critisism about “SOPA” can be interpreted  as critisism about the laws of property. And no senator is going to touch this topic and get in the ring with the supreme court for ideal, cultural reasons.
    I hope you do not take this as an insult, but your country is nearly broke at the moment and the idea of increasing the moneyflow by law protection must be tempting for most advisors right now.
    The only chance I see is to take this campaign to the opposition and try to make them understand, that a free internet agenda will bring them a lot of young voters. But this is only a very small chance in my oppinion.
    I hope you will succeed anyway.

    • http://www.shutindating.com/ David

      Well that’s kind of the problem, it’s not protected right now on web when it comes to foreign sites. That’s really what the aim of the bill is, not to censor the internet, but to protect intellectual property. It’s just that due to some vague parts in previous revisions it’s being scrutinized.

      • Jesse Melat

        So…say a foreign site _does_…let’s say….illegally  allow folks ’round the world to watch a telesync of Jack and Jill without paying for it.  What does this bill enable the owners of Jack and Jill to do about it?

        Perhaps you should explain that part to us.   Not for my benefit, mind you, but for all those people you’ve been calling names for…..gosh, it looks like almost a week now.    

        For the sake of argument, let’s say that this evil, free Jack and Jill site is located in the Phillippines.

        • http://www.shutindating.com/ David

          The bill allows the company to serve an order to the company to take the video down and if they do not comply then the site’s host must prevent the name from resolving to the ip address. Also the advertising companies must stop giving them advertisements and paying them. Search engines must remove their site from the database. And the company that handles the transactions must freeze their account.

          Not sure what names I called actual people. I stated that people were morons if they considered this to not be stealing.

          • Jesse Melat

            I’m not sure either, honestly.  It’s been hard keeping count.  

            So…google omits this evil philipino website from their appearing in searches for “Jack and Jill”, “Video”,  and “over 20 minutes”?, then?

            And if google does not comply?   Their fate is…what, despite them not being the ones illegally hosting said Adam Sandler movie?  Feel free to include scenarios in which google willingly refuses to comply, and ones wherein google either “missed something” or simply does not have the manpower to double check everything (not likely for google, I know….so let’s call this unlikely fledgeling search engine company…metacrawler or something silly like that).   For that matter, does this include overseas advertisers?   I just see this bill, as you’ve thus far described it, leading to nothing more than the spawning of an overseas search engine company that includes things like tudou and btjunkie.  And nothing changes other than a bookmark or two for people like me steal copyrighted material.

            Just so you know, I’m _not_ attempting to lead you into any kind of trap or anything–I admit I don’t know much about the bill other than its aims, other than that I oppose it on tje principle of being against anything that gives copyright holders any more power than they already have.  I’m a socialist extremist who’s beyond logic or rational thought; a lost cause.

            I just think you could stand to state your argument more politely and unconfrontationally than you have been.   Patience is a virtue, especially when you’re the only cobra in the mongoose den (or only mongoose in the cobra den, whichever analogy you prefer.)

          • http://www.shutindating.com/ David

            As far as if Google missed something they aren’t liable for that. The bill does actually state that, and the same goes for YouTube. They aren’t liable for checking everything on their site. 

            The bill does actually allow for the government to file injunctions against overseas entities. Which is what makes it useful. Cause like I said, right now they can’t do much about a foreign site. If someone wanted to sue Spoony and challenge whether or not his material was protected under Fair Use, they could. But they haven’t because well, who cares? He’s not like a millionaire or anything, and in all reality he’s giving their products more publicity.

            About being a socialist, you seem like the kind of guy who wouldn’t want government interfering with everything in your life. So why would you want to be a socialist?

          • Anonymous

            On international level, nothing changes.
            The suggested phillipine site is still protected, because they are not bound to american law.

            On a national level, nothing will change also, because this law can backfire very quikly and so the judges will learn to handle it carefully.

            For example: 
            A judge orders a site to loose its easy access by searchengines for hosting links to illegal files.
            Now someone places links on a site like disney and the judge would be forced to do the same to them.
            Disney sues everyone and this judge will be more careful next time.

            The only effect will be a increase of crypted traffic on the net and a growing number of sub- and darknets. 

          • http://www.shutindating.com/ David

            Umm that’s not what it says at all. If the site in the Phillipines is direct at US Customers, i.e. it’s a .com address and it’s in english and US ad companies are doing the advertisement, it’s under US law. 

            It’s kind of like if BMW had a factory here. Sure it’s a German company, but the factory that is here would be bound by US law.

            And here’s the thing about links to sites. There isn’t anything in the bill about that. And the other thing is, even if a site had a link 99.9% of links you come across on the internet don’t link directly to an ip address. So once the site loses it’s DNS those links stop working anyway so it would be a moot point.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ABLQNRL3IHXWUTZINOV6BLJTM4 Fabian

            That’s not exactly how it works. To use your example: A BMW factory in the US is NOT owned by the German company, but by a subsidiary incorporated under US law. That is the ONLY reason why they are subject to US jurisdiction and, logically, also a prerequisite for expanding your business to the US in any case.

            A web site owner who has all data placed on a foreign location, who is a foreign citizen and/or owns a foreign company, whose website is registered with a foreign company is NOT affected by SOPA directly. The US have neither authority to mess with top-level domains (although they certainly have the means) nor to infringe on other countries’ internal business affairs.

          • http://twitter.com/realyst2k realyst

            See my earlier replies(my initial one and my longer one to counter his claim I was pulling things out of my arse).  Until he’s respond to those points, anything further he says has been answered.  Not sure if he’s a troll, the child of an exec/sponser, a shill for an exec/sponser or just a hateful ignorant individual, but in either case, probably best to ignore this chap.

  • http://twitter.com/Espeon94 Ian Arnold

    Well at least this one sounds like he may have actually read the letter, or at least paid someone to.

  • Anonymous

    Few people can objectively claim that piracy is a universally beneficial
    practice for gaming, movies, and other digital goods, and it’s not wrong
    to want the creators of those works to gain a fair sense of security
    for their work.

    But SOPA is NOT FAIR. As it is worded, its usage allows for blunt,
    short-sighted attacks against any website, and potentially allows for
    the extension of monopolistic practices it was NOT designed to provide.

    The bill is backwards in its implementation of “Shoot-first, seek
    forgiveness later”, and nobody in congress seems willing to acknowledge
    or publish any testimony or discourse about the bill.

    Instead, we continually receive responses of “Trust us, we would never do anything like that”.

    If that is so, then why do they not put it in writing? What is stopping them from putting in preventative clauses?

    That’s what has people on edge here; it’s not just the vague wording of
    the bill, but the government’s absolute and continued refusal to
    acknowledge these problems openly.

    Personally, I’m against software piracy. I understand the economic science behind
    it, and beyond the usual slog of “IT IZ BAD, BECUZ IT HURTS THEIR
    PROFITS, BRAH”.
    There are cases one can argue that piracy is the only feasible option, but those cases are BY FAR the minority, and in my experiences with such people they are not the sort who cannot afford the games and media they copy.

    HOWEVER.
    SOPA poses a far bigger threat to online commerce, and to freedom of expression than any number of illicit torrent sites.

    Fair Use is a related copyright law that regularly gets ignored by Big Media.
    It has
    been constantly stamped out because it costs a lot of money to take Big
    Media to court over it (there are numerous cases to be made from
    video-hosting sites, like Blip, Youtube, Vimeo, DailyMotion, etc).

    To get your rights upheld, you have to sue.

    SOPA claims to allow for compensation, but in practice, only those who
    can afford the legal fees will be truly protected, while the accusers (Big Media Copyright holders) are
    given free reign to take action against ANYONE THEY WANT without prior justifying evidence.

    Instead of those concrete, preventative clauses, we have circumstantial damage control. In terms of economics, there is a very real danger that SOPA can put MANY independent/non-Big-Media sites out of business for reasons *completely unrelated to piracy*.

    Sure, Big Media might get fined and sued for compensation, but the incredible legal
    flexibility SOPA offers to Big Media far outweighs the options of the average internet user, and most smaller businesses.

    • http://www.shutindating.com/ David

      (B) IMMUNITY FROM LIABILITY- Other than in an action pursuant to paragraph (4)–

      (i) any entity served with a copy of an order under this subsection, and any director, officer, employee, or agent thereof, shall not be liable for any act reasonably designed to comply with this subsection or reasonably arising from such order; and

      (ii) any–

      (I) actions taken by customers of such entity to circumvent any restriction on access to the foreign infringing site, or portion thereof, that is subject to such order, that is instituted pursuant to this subsection, or

      (II) act, failure, or inability to restrict access to a foreign infringing site, or portion thereof, that is subject to such order, in spite of good faith efforts to comply with such order by such entity, shall not be used by any person in any claim or cause of action against such entity.

      So this would seem to grant immunity to search engines and media hosting sites like YouTube. It’s funny though because YouTube basically already uses an automatic system to deal with copyrights. It can be horribly wrong of course. Like I posted a Let’s Play for LA Noire and it thought the material belonged to a Mexican Car Magazine for some reason, and took the video down.

      I find it interesting that since the site does this, no one really complains. But if the government told YouTube to do that, people would be outraged.

      • Anonymous

        “(i) any entity served with a copy of an order under this subsection, and
        any director, officer, employee, or agent thereof, shall not be liable
        for any act reasonably designed to comply with this subsection or
        reasonably arising from such order;”

        In other words: They’re relying on the infringing site to remove their DNS registrar if issued this order?

        Removing the bullshit legalese, I read this as:
        “Any person/entity issued a an injunction via SOPA, isn’t liable to comply with that injunction.”

        All that amounts to is a Cease and Desist.

        That makes no bloody sense.

  • http://twitter.com/Enerccio Peter Vanusanik

    Dear Mr. David. Where can I sign up as a SOPA advocate and how much do they pay? Seems like a fine job. Are you assigned to a specific website or do you tell bullshit all around the web?

    • http://twitter.com/Ben_PF89 Ben Y.

      Yes because Spoony has a big enough fan base that the pro SOPA crowd have to pay someone to spam his comments section with pro SOPA debate.

      Keep thinking that Peter.  

      • Isabella xx

        Actually you’ll be surprised, my friend had a job basically doing that just, a living internet advertisement for software her company was trying to sell.

    • http://www.shutindating.com/ David

      I have a different view than you, that’s all. I read the bill myself and formed my own opinions. And from that I decided that it is in fact an effective way to shut down a lot of sites that currently nothing can be done about. I don’t like the fact that foreign companies are getting paid by US advertisement companies for material they are stealing.

      Sure there are a few things I’d like to see clarified but the method is solid and not as evil as it’s made out to be.

      • http://twitter.com/Enerccio Peter Vanusanik

        From a point of view of computer major, yes, it is a terrible law. Anything that messes up with DNS is a terrible law. It’s basically censorship no matter how “justified” it is (it isn’t). Just because some companies can’t cope (but they can, otherwise they would have been out of business LONG time ago, but they aren’t, that’s weird….) it’s THEIR problem, not the rest of the world. The fact that server located in another country can get it’s domain disabled is clearly wrong.

        I remember one instance when feds claimed a domain, which was hosting thousands of subdomains, one of which was illegal. Many people lost their revenue because they had shops and sites on that domain. THAT is not right and never will be.

        BTW, If I had to choose between internet staying as it is and movie/record companies going bankrupt, I would choose second at any day. Internet is and was and (hopefully) will be about freedom.

      • http://twitter.com/realyst2k realyst

        Please read up on the technical issues SOPA will bring about, including, but not limited to, a weakening of cybersecurity efforts worldwide as efforts to finally implement DNSSEC are derailed.  Equally, as has been stated, this is merely a dumber(as in simpler in mechanism) version of the Chinese firewall.  If you’re against one, you can’t be for the other without some serious delusion or honest misunderstanding.

        (notice:  I am professionally qualified to state the above.  I am not an ‘armchair IT guy’.  The repercussions of this are real and dangerous at an infrastructure level)

        Now for the things I’m not as professionally qualified to speak about but am at least knowledgeable about.

        The economic impact of this will likely simply be an extension of existing notice-and-takedown mechanisms which have been used continually to destroy or severely limit new enterprise in order to keep older, entrenched enterprise afloat to the benefit of the very few.

        Politically, this is a huge shitstorm as well.  The world has “let” the US effectively be the home of the domain resolution process by virtue of two facts:

        1)  The US invented most of its systems.  As such, much of its infrastructure is nicely nestled.  It made sense during the early days.

        2)  The US has constitutionally protected free speech.  Most other countries don’t, including Canada and the UK.  It makes the US rather unique and presented it as a fair mediator in a world of diverse governmental opinions as to what should be allowed to be said.

         Unfortunately, no one saw that the US government and most of its apathetic public wouldn’t care if legislation, such as this one, paid no attention to the constitution.  

        With measures such as these, we non-Americans no longer trust you Americans to be the caretakers of the Internet.  You hear that?  Can you fathom the results of that rather significant political fact?

        Finally, this =won’t stop piracy at all=.  That’s right, absolutely nothing about any of these bills will even so much as slow down piracy.  Bittorrent is just as happy dealing with IPs as it is with domain names resolving to IPs.   

        Both SOPA and PIP are terrible pieces of legislation with a worldwide impact that will be very negative for the entire world, but, you know who’s gonna suffer the most for it?  The USA.  Nations will resolve their own domains.  Pirates will use their own DNS system.  International companies will slowly shift focus away fro the US as a market as it becomes as difficult to deal with as China but without the population density to justify doing it anyways.

        • http://www.shutindating.com/ David

          Well let me reply to everything from the top:

          To be honest you don’t sound qualified to talk about anything. This bill has nothing to do with DNSSEC. It doesn’t delete sites or give the government an “off switch” to just turn off things at will. A letter is sent to the site’s host and they must take action to stop the domain name from resolving to the address. This is actually nothing like China’s way of “filtering” the internet.
          Since you are speaking theoretically and not from any kind of knowledge you obviously haven’t read the bill. I recommend you read it.

          1. Al Gore invented the internet and it’s all in his basement, joking of course.

          2. We do have free speech, and this bill actually has 3 saving clauses, 2 being anything that would result in a loss of free speech or  be deemed unconstitutional would render the bill invalid. That part is in just about every section of it actually.

          Fortunately it does pay attention to the constitution.

          This is why I don’t think you really know what you’re talking about. There are servers that host sites in about every developed country. ICANN is a corporation here in America that is responsible for keeping track of Domain Names. Really don’t need several places doing the same job unless every country has it’s own internet.

          Finally, it will stop piracy. You have to realize that the sites streaming movies and tv shows, don’t do it for free. Even the sites that give out bit torrent links, don’t do it for free. They are doing it to make money. And this bill stops advertisers from paying what are obviously thieves.

          It’s great that you think this is somehow going to effect you, even though you say you live outside of the US. Well as it turns out, it doesn’t effect you. Not unless you spend all your time on sites that are targeted to the US and are obvious pirating sites.

          • http://twitter.com/realyst2k realyst

            Sorry, there is a lot of ‘wrong’ in your post there.  This reply has to be a long one to address it all

            ”
            This bill has nothing to do with DNSSEC. It doesn’t delete sites or give the government an “off switch” to just turn off things at will. A letter is sent to the site’s host and they must take action to stop the domain name from resolving to the address.”
            How do you think ISPs do that?  Magical fairy dust?  Name resolution occurs at the DNS level(hence [D]omain [N]ame [S]erver).   In order for DNSSEC to work, the certified DNS must all be on the same page.  That’s both IN and OUTSIDE the USA.

            More details here:
            http://www.securityweek.com/dnssecs-time-here-sopa-presents-challenges 

            “ A letter is sent to the site’s host and they must take action to stop the domain name from resolving to the address.”

            Host and name resolver are two things.  The “host” provides either space on a server or a virtual machine with space and installed services bound to an IP address.  The resolution occurs using a DNS attached to the host by way of the domain name registrar.  The domain name registrar reserves the name from the domain name registry.  These registry, among other organizations, manage the root DNS which tell your ISP’s DNS how to resolve the domain to an IP.

            A letter sent to the host already happens in the US under the DMCA.  What SOPA intends to do is target name resolution.  That means mucking about with DNS.

            Please, before questioning my qualifications, do at least a tiny bit of research.  

            “This is actually nothing like China’s way of “filtering” the internet.”

            At a technical level, you’re correct.  China’s way of filtering the net relies on a firewall set up at the edge servers around the country. They don’t block the name resolution, but rather, the IP.  In a sense, what they’re doing is less harmful to the internet as an infrastructure since they at least leave the inter-DNS relationships alone.  Also, it is more effective than SOPA would be.  Likely because when they planned this, they asked professionals and not Hollywood.

            “Since you are speaking theoretically and not from any kind of knowledge”

            In regards to net infrastructure, I speak with knowledge.  You apparently do not.  in regards to the politics, I have admitted I do so out of a hobby.  I am in no way professionally qualified in the field but do have a fairly good understanding of the subject matter.

            “ We do have free speech, and this bill actually has 3 saving clauses, 2 being anything that would result in a loss of free speech or  be deemed unconstitutional would render the bill invalid. That part is in just about every section of it actually.”

            Mutually exclusive to the intent of the bill.  They aim to close dissenting sites(‘dissenting’ in this case referring to those sites deemed, without due cause, to be infringing on IP with a ruling not requiring or even allowing the accused to respond prior to the damage being done)

            I’ll leave this link here:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act#Threat_to_online_freedom_of_speech 

            “This is why I don’t think you really know what you’re talking about. There are servers that host sites in about every developed country. ICANN is a corporation here in America that is responsible for keeping track of Domain Names. Really don’t need several places doing the same job unless every country has it’s own internet.”

            ICANN does not keep track of domain names.  They mediate the resolution process and approve/disapprove of additional GTLDs or CCTLDs as well as assign these TLDs to the care of a registry.  Registries keep track of domains names up to the point of the registrars.  The registrars keep track of the domain name down to you.  I worked for a registrar.  I know what I’m talking about here.  Best back down.

            As such, SOPA would have no immediate effect on .ca, .co.uk or a slew of other CCTLDs not managed by a registry with an office in the US.  

            This brings me to you point here:

            “Finally, it will stop piracy. You have to realize that the sites streaming movies and tv shows, don’t do it for free. Even the sites that give out bit torrent links, don’t do it for free. They are doing it to make money. And this bill stops advertisers from paying what are obviously thieves.”

            It will not, repeat, NOT stop piracy.  This is due to a number of reasons.  The first and foremost being the fact that non-US CCTLDs will not be blocked.  If the pirate site is using .com, they have a problem.  So they’ll switch to .ru or .ly.   Also, they may just become known by IP address.  No need for ANY name resolution there.  Or finally, a separate unofficial root DNS system, like those which already exist, will be used to resolve domains like .pirate away from both US and ICANN control.  Hell, you could even build a Firefox extension and/or plug-in to do it for you.  Technically, TOR already does.  And finally finally, there was piracy before the internet.  I remember a few unlabelled floppies with Space Quest on them.  Yes, I’m dating myself here.

            “It’s great that you think this is somehow going to effect you, even though you say you live outside of the US. Well as it turns out, it doesn’t effect you. Not unless you spend all your time on sites that are targeted to the US and are obvious pirating sites.”

            A) Sites, like Noah’s, are under threat due to vague wording.  I like Spoony’s site.  So yes, I would be upset to see it go.

            B)  Also, the US mucking about with DNS is breaking a very important relationship between name servers which would otherwise be used to further secure them against DNS poisoning.  The US congress’ idiocy is affecting my cybersecurity, regardless of which goddamn country I’m in.  

            C)  I know plenty of pirates who don’t get paid for their piracy.  They do it either for ideological reasons(they refuse to pay the MPAA for a movie ticket), financial reasons(they are cheap or poor or don’t think its worth the money), or as collectors.  Not justifying any of those actions, they just fly straight in the face of your accusation.  Sure, some make money off the endeavour.  Congratulations, this bill will impact a small minority of content pirates, until they do any of the things I mentioned above.

            D)  You know what will happen once payment processors become unreliable?  New ones set up outside your nation will start up to fill the void.

          • Anonymous

            As a fellow network engineer, I salute you, and your post here.

            Pardon me for being overly dramatic here, but Hollywood would prefer to rule our Digital Rome for a year, and then burn it to ashes around them.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/George-Rosenbaum/100001387887487 George Rosenbaum

    Found to full text of Protect IP. This is the bill that is more likely than SOPA to pass (from what Spoony said in his VLog). You can find it here:

    http://www.dontcensorthenet.com/full-text-of-the-protect-ip-act-of-2011 

    • http://www.shutindating.com/ David

      Other way around. The SOPA bill had already made it to the floor in congress but the Protect IP act was being held up in the Senate.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/George-Rosenbaum/100001387887487 George Rosenbaum

        Oh, sorry.

        Did you read my other post? By the way, how do sites get declared ‘rogue’ under the bill?

  • Anonymous

    If somebody wants to read a foreign reception of Sopa, here is a german article. I only used GoogleTranslator, so the syntax might be funny sometimes:

    Found in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung - He will not argue about “this technology,” says Mel Watt: He was not a nerd, even though he might look like and sometimes behave like one. The naivety with which the discussion in the Law Committee of the House of Representatives in Washington last December by the Democratic delegate from North Carolina and another was sometimes done, is hard to beat.Likewise, the explosive nature of her subject: For Democratic Representative Zoe Lofgren, whose constituency is in the Silicon Valley, would be the law, whose draft is under discussion, just “know the end of the Internet, as we have.” Also, Jason Chaffetz, Republican congressman from Utah, is worried: “We operate around here on the Internet without a doctor had told us, as we transplant the organs.” Chaffetz urges doctors to consider the appropriate rate.
    The surgery has become known by the acronym “Sopa”. The Stop Online Piracy Act to advancing the illegal supply of movies, games, books and music recordings on the Internet, but also the illegal drug trade finally an effective latch. The way: In addition to the blockade copyright infringing domains from within the country are by court order, the company can be reminded of their duty, associated with such domains from abroad in connection – be it that they sell advertising for American users on these sites, payment systems offer, which are used on these sites operate, or search engines that refer to such sites. Domain owners must demonstrate that they prevent copyright infringement on its site – which provides the operator from Youtube or Vimeo before serious problems and the question of how to deal with all the little copyright infringement, is provided as part of the digital fan culture actually tolerated so far : pieces of amateur musicians imitated their idols, for fun, newly dubbed film clips or persiflage.
    The list of supporters is shrinkingLamar Smith, who introduced as chairman of the Legal Committee, the bill says, the Sopa-law would protect industries that make up sixty percent of exports and put it in the United States nineteen million jobs. No wonder that the associations of American music and film industry supporters, if not pulse count of the bill.
    The American film industry caused by copyright infringement on the Internet claims to annual losses of 20.5 billion dollars. Although the list of supporters since last September, has shrunk by two thirds, who have recently distanced himself Nintendo, Sony and game developer Electronic Arts from Sopa. But the phalanx of supporters still includes some 120 companies and organizations.
    Versatile concernsAlso on the other hand, there are giants: Google, Facebook and Twitter are among the most prominent opponents of the law, this activist organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation and grass roots projects like Wikipedia. They care about freedom of expression, which would effectively cut with Sopa, even if the text of the law begins with the observation of expression and press freedom should not be jeopardized. Sergey Brin, one of the founders of Google, says that with Sopa to put America on a par with the most repressive countries in the world.
    More articlesIllegal downloads: Associations demand warningsPirate Party: The Linux-democracyEven the specialists, which has called on Jason Chaffetz, have asked for the floor: More than eighty renowned computer scientist brought in an open letter to the American Congress, the concern for “their” project expressed that we now commonly call the Internet. The designers, programmers and administrators of the Internet, warning of the danger to freedom of expression and against innovation hostility, and they point to link failure and serious security problems that would result from the implementation of Sopa, regardless of where – whether in the classification of domain names, through firewalls or special server – will intervene technically on the Internet.Critics also find support from the state: the Sandia National Laboratories to share the fear that the proposed law could adversely affect safety and operation of the Internet in America and worldwide.
    A warningFortunately, the Internet is not the same, but for now only on a bill tinkering. And this is another opportunity: the Legal Committee, the plenary of the House of Representatives or in comparison with the second chamber, the Senate on 24 January, the counterpart of the bill under the name Protect Intellectual Property Act (Pipa) negotiates, or prior to the signature of the President.
    A warning of this attack is in any case. Want to take him seriously as Google, Amazon, Ebay and Yahoo, to show their thoughts together on one day lead their users to a black American Home, the company warned on the dangers of Sopa and to ask for deputies to the plans to protest.
    How nervous the advice of the Law on the Internet is monitored, the excitement was at the adjournment of the debate: Just had the activists breathed again after two days of debate in the Legal Committee in mid-December, because it would in the old year now happen probably nothing more than Twitter’s warning a feint before the President made the rounds: The intended use of the pre-Christmas distraction and early morning on 21 December the Committee come together yet again and are on the bill let. But that session was finally deposed. There was peace on earth, while the Internet continues raged against Sopa. In the Rayburn House in Washington to debate the middle of this month will now continue. 

  • Brian Magid

    This is not content. I’ve had internships in political offices and this is the standard letter that gets sent out to anyone who writes in with an opinion. You really did not need to post this.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_3ED5DZPAKEOGC7SW6YN65ACVIA Alex

    Here’s a video I’ve found on Youtube. It was made by JeepersMedia, and it shows how hypocritical these corporations and businesses really are. 

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJIuYgIvKsc&feature=channel_video_title 

    Sponny, you need to see this! Everyone one needs to see this video! Spread this video everywhere. It’s probably our only tool against SOPA and these hypocritical bastards. 

  • Anonymous

    *Edit*
    This was a reply meant for a specific post. Apparently, it decided to spit it up to the top of the list.
    Those responsible for the inconvenience of having to scroll past post this have been sacked.

  • adamsr
  • tyler oakley

    yay a non formletter

  • http://www.wix.com/enveracomics/ecs/ Julian Moretti

    http://www.yourgamercards.net/forums/index.php?/topic/6742-sopapipa-shut-down-indefinately/page__pid__45844#entry45844

    Congress has announced that SOPA has now been shelved indefinitely; this was the statement release by TheHill:

    House Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) said early Saturday
    morning that Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) promised him the House
    will not vote on the controversial Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) unless
    there is consensus on the bill.

    Quote
    “While
    I remain concerned about Senate action on the Protect IP Act, I am
    confident that flawed legislation will not be taken up by this House,”
    Issa said in a statement. “Majority Leader Cantor has assured me that
    we will continue to work to address outstanding concerns and work to
    build consensus prior to any anti-piracy legislation coming before the
    House for a vote.”

    But, as stated, the bill is not going to be passed unless there is a
    consensus to it. This means that we will probably be seeing a revised
    version of that bill sometime in the future. At least we don’t have to
    worry about the internet being destroyed in the near future, and
    hopefully we won’t have to worry about a duplicate popping up later.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OT2SFQYSWHIKLCNW5QG2R6B5GM Fraser S

    You know I love these artists who get paid millions complaining about copyright infringement.  I’m a mathematician, I write mathematics research papers for a “living”.  Let me tell you there is NO financial incentive for writing mathematics journal papers, none.

    Isn’t what I do creative too?  Shouldn’t I have some control over my intellectual property and charge people for reading my papers?  The problem is even worse, because in fact the journals I publish to make money from my work.

    Yes that’s right, I write a research paper, have it published in a journal, and the journal charges people to buy the published work.  I do not see a single penny from any of the sales they make.

    I just find their complaints laughable to say the least.  I went to watch The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo in the cinema just last week.  The place was packed, despite us being grossly overcharged for tickets and popcorn.  When I say packed I mean I literally got the last seat.

    If online piracy was such a major issue wouldn’t the cinema be empty most of the time because people simply download it for free online?

    • http://www.facebook.com/rabblesthebinx Brian Frang

      Unless your papers are new equations no one knows about prior to your writing the article, then it’s not the same thing as writing a song, and NOT your intellectual property. First off, these artists  are rarely as wealthy as you seem to think. Recording contracts are basically extremely high interest loans. They pay for the album, the videos, tours, merchandising, where the artist lives, the food they eat, the drugs they use… And then charge the artist 20% on top of paying that back. If you want a good idea of how online piracy hurts the music business, talk to people in bands trying to get a record deal (Though, with sites like ITunes, that isn’t as big a deal as a couple years ago). Music companies make far less money, so they hire less good bands and instead manufacture pop stars based on what the statistics say people want, which is why instead of an ACTUAL rebel/punk singer, we ended up with Avril Lavigne. Also, saying that online piracy isn’t an issue because people still go to theaters is like saying there is no global warming because we still have snow. The fact is, online piracy DOES hurt the box office performances of films, it’s a proven fact, (although apparently it doesn’t seem to affect DVD/BR sales). People have to understand that there’s a difference between shutting down Megaupload/Megavideo (a site which gave you a limited viewing time unless you paid them money to watch copyrighted material) and legislation like SOPA, in which the language was so broad, theoretically a site like this could be shut down because of the parodies done.

  • Arsenal Of Megadeath

    I did my part spoony! The State of Iowa (at least me and my friends) have made our voices heard!! Save Spoony!

  • Anonymous

    i did my part spoony 
    Dear Michael,
     
    Thank you for taking the time to contact me with your opposition to H.R. 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and S. 968, the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property (PROTECT IP) Act.  As your Representative for the 6th district of Minnesota, your views are very important to me and I appreciate hearing from you.
     
    I agree with you.
     
    While I understand the importance of safeguarding Americans’ intellectual property rights, I have serious concerns about government getting involved in regulation of the internet, and about ambiguities in these bills which could lead to an explosion of destructive, innovation-stalling lawsuits. 
     
    As you know, if enacted, H.R. 3261 and its Senate companion bill, S. 968, would greatly expand the authority of the federal government to track and prosecute websites found to be committing or facilitating online piracy.  Presently, H.R. 3261 awaits further action in the House Committee on the Judiciary.  S. 968, however, was reported out of Committee on July 22, 2011 and is currently pending a vote in the Senate.
     
    Should either of these bills come to the House floor for a vote, please rest assured that I will oppose them. 
     
    Again, thank you for contacting me, and for all you do for our community and country.  I care about you, and if I or my staff can be of assistance to you regarding this issue or any other, please contact us at the Woodbury or the St. Cloud/Waite Park district offices or the Washington, DC office.
     
     
    Sincerely, Michele BachmannMember of Congress

  • http://twitter.com/FallenJackal Joey Ogg

    If SOPA passes… Bitches are going to die
    oh and ive been protesting this thing for half a year soooo yeah this is kinda stupid

  • http://twitter.com/CasWegkamp Cas Wegkamp

    Check out this link about SOPA and PIPA: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9h2dF-IsH0I

  • http://www.facebook.com/tcolleran Tony Colleran

    It’s a form letter with a autopen signature. I got the exact same letter from Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/4MPSOZ7NHLSAOUOENYGUG6SFOA rvc

    I leave this message for the people of the future that see this:
    SOPA didn’t pass, but the war hasn’t  ended yet….

The Spoony Experiment © 2012 Noah Antwiler
Privacy Policy
Banner image by Jared von Hindman
Forged by [the Engineer]