346 replies to this topic

[Visor]

It'll have some impact, the way all issues have some impact. The likely strategically-timed adverts in the run-up to the election might change a few minds. But there are a lot of other things going on in America that a lot more Americans care about, so it's unlikely it'd be a deciding factor.

Edited by Visor, 03 February 2012 - 11:00 AM.

[chance]

Meanwhile, as the world was wringing its hands over SOPA (which had no chance of passing anyway), the European Union pushed through ACTA -- which many say is more dangerous than SOPA.

Why do you think SOPA had no chance of passing, if not because of the public outcry?

Because of the opposition history behind the bill. Cracks were forming as early as October 2011 -- before most people ever heard of SOPA. Senate opposition called SOPA a "bad re-write" of the Senate's bill to strengthen the Protect IP Act (PIPA) -- which many senators already considered a flawed bill. Many senators who were opposed to strengthening PIPA, saw the House attempt as a way to circumvent their opposition. In fact, several opposition congressmen issued filibuster threats in November 2011.

Also, the White House had already made many statements about their concerns, several months before they formally issued a veto threat.

The public outcry and petitions hastened SOPAs demise. But they were just the final nail in the coffin. Even without all the online chest-thumping, SOPA would've died.

[Rusky]

Before the public outcry, there was a large majority in favor of SOPA. Now there is not. Maybe the White House would have vetoed it, but considering Obama's behavior toward NDAA, I doubt it - he passed it despite opposing a pretty horrible part, because he wanted some of it.

Edited by Rusky, 03 February 2012 - 02:21 PM.

[Rusty]

he passed it despite opposing a pretty horrible part, because he wanted some of it.

Wow, I kinda get why Americans are falling out with him if that's his attitude towards these bills.

[chance]

Before the public outcry, there was a large majority in favor of SOPA.

This isn't correct. Before the internet "outcry", the general public (around the world) was simply uninformed. There was no "large majority" one way or another.

As far as what Obama "would have done"... we can only speculate. The situation is complex, for the following reasons: Much of Obama's supporters from Hollywood/Music Industry, also supported SOPA. So clearly, this put Obama in a tight spot: he wants their support, but at the same time he respects popular opinion.

Therefore, without public outcry the most likely scenario "would have been" for Obama to convince Senator Reid (Senate Majority Leader) to quash the bill through various means. So even if SOPA passed the House, the bill would've never come to a Senate vote at all -- especially given that there was SOPA opposition from both parties.

This would have stopped SOPA without forcing the President to take a stand against it publicly.

[Rusky]

A large majority of Congress. And yes, there was. I don't know where you're getting your facts, but it's not reality.

http://techcrunch.co...nts-supporters/

By the numbers alone, PIPA may have passed even with the protests.

Edited by Rusky, 03 February 2012 - 06:53 PM.

[faissialoo]

A large majority of Congress. And yes, there was. I don't know where you're getting your facts, but it's not reality.

http://techcrunch.com/2012/01/19/sopa-opponents-supporters/

By the numbers alone, PIPA may have passed even with the protests.

they must be mental! We just need to push them a bit more. Oh and anonymouse eavsdropped a meeting about hacktavism

[chance]

A large majority of Congress. And yes, there was. I don't know where you're getting your facts, but it's not reality.

http://techcrunch.com/2012/01/19/sopa-opponents-supporters/

By the numbers alone, PIPA may have passed even with the protests.

It's clear from my comments I was speaking about public support -- not congressional. As I thought you were too.

But yes, there was a congressional majority who "didn't strongly oppose" SOPA. But that's not the same as majority support for SOPA. Many congressmen listed as "supporters" on the ProPublica site (from your techcrunch link) were neutral. They expressed concerns about piracy... but also expressed concerns about First Amendment Rights. So calling them all "SOPA supporters" is a massive exaggeration.

Long before the internet protests, there was a wave building in congress led by Senators Ron Wyden (D-Oregon), Jerry Moran (R-Kansas) and Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.). They introduced legislation for The Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade (OPEN) Act, as a replacement to SOPA/PIPA.

But here's what I find so humorous about this entire affair: on the one hand, many opponents say SOPA is just an excuse for evil governments to control information. A conspiracy to stifle free speech and control the population.

But if this were really true, do you honestly believe they'd give a crap about some internet protests and websites going dark? Seriously... how "evil" can they be?

My point is that the protests only hastened the process -- because many law-makers were already leaning in that direction.

[icuurd12b42]

But here's what I find so humorous about this entire affair: on the one hand, many opponents say SOPA is just an excuse for evil governments to control information. A conspiracy to stifle free speech and control the population.

And that's never gonna happen in America right;)

But if this were really true, do you honestly believe they'd give a crap about some internet protests and websites going dark? Seriously... how "evil" can they be? :tongue:

I would tend to favor the word dumb as opposed to evil. Putting in place a system that would ease any evil intent down the line is dumb.

On the other hand, when the time comes, even if a system was already in place to be abused, it would not matter at all.

My point is that the protests only hastened the process -- because many law-makers were already leaning in that direction.

True, but I would hope the protest woke up a few senator to the reality the it's supposed to be the people that make the final decision.

[edit]
Typo

[Rusky]

But yes, there was a congressional majority who "didn't strongly oppose" SOPA. But that's not the same as majority support for SOPA. Many congressmen listed as "supporters" on the ProPublica site (from your techcrunch link) were neutral. They expressed concerns about piracy... but also expressed concerns about First Amendment Rights. So calling them all "SOPA supporters" is a massive exaggeration.

No, the neutral congressmen were unlisted. Of the ones who were listed, there was a majority. Again, I have no idea where you're coming up with these claims.

But here's what I find so humorous about this entire affair: on the one hand, many opponents say SOPA is just an excuse for evil governments to control information. A conspiracy to stifle free speech and control the population.

But if this were really true, do you honestly believe they'd give a crap about some internet protests and websites going dark? Seriously... how "evil" can they be?

I don't think anyone's claiming a conspiracy. I also don't think public outrage and awareness would be helpful to the goals of such a conspiracy, if it were to exist. You're huffing and puffing at a straw man here.

The real problem, and it was a realistic threat, was that SOPA could be abused extremely easily, and we know for a fact that it would have been, considering how the existing "tools" for copyright owners are abused.

My point is that the protests only hastened the process -- because many law-makers were already leaning in that direction.

"Many" is not the same as "majority."

[chance]

But yes, there was a congressional majority who "didn't strongly oppose" SOPA. But that's not the same as majority support for SOPA. Many congressmen listed as "supporters" on the ProPublica site (from your techcrunch link) were neutral. They expressed concerns about piracy... but also expressed concerns about First Amendment Rights. So calling them all "SOPA supporters" is a massive exaggeration.

No, the neutral congressmen were unlisted. Of the ones who were listed, there was a majority. Again, I have no idea where you're coming up with these claims.

I get this information from the same website that actually created your list (on your techcrunch link): ProPublica. Here's what they said themselves, about their own list of "supporters" (quoted from link, but emphasis mine):

****
Some Questions, Answered

Among the most frequent questions is: "Why is my member of Congress listed as supporting SOPA even after he/she made a statement against it?"

A broad answer: Some SOPA (and PIPA) backers pledge to heavily revise the bill, so the line between an opponent of SOPA and a supporter of an altered version of SOPA is not always clear.
...
Along similar lines, Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) expressed the same sentiment as Udall (emphasis added): "I would not vote for final passage of PIPA, as currently written, on the Senate floor." However, we have listed him as a "supporter," because he has not withdrawn his co-sponsorship of PIPA.

So far, we've used the "opponent" designation for members of Congress who either back the proposed OPEN Act, which is fundamentally different than SOPA/PIPA -- like Senators Ron Wyden and Maria Cantwell -- or who have stated their opposition to SOPA/PIPA in unqualified terms, like Sen. Scott Brown and Rep. Ron Paul.

As it stands, we can never be certain of each member's true position until a full vote is called.
****

My point is that their original list of supporters and opponents was probably weighted towards supporters. As they said themselves, if a congressman hadn't spoken out loudly, or said he wouldn't support SOPA in its current form, he might be listed as a supporter anyway.

However, I don't deny that there were many SOPA supporters before the protest. Maybe even enough to pass it... although I'm skeptical of that.

But here's what I find so humorous about this entire affair: on the one hand, many opponents say SOPA is just an excuse for evil governments to control information. A conspiracy to stifle free speech and control the population.

But if this were really true, do you honestly believe they'd give a crap about some internet protests and websites going dark? Seriously... how "evil" can they be?

I don't think anyone's claiming a conspiracy. I also don't think public outrage and awareness would be helpful to the goals of such a conspiracy, if it were to exist. You're huffing and puffing at a straw man here.

No, there were people claiming SOPA's "true motive" wasn't piracy, but some sinister desire for control. I'm saying SOPA supporters were seriously misguided -- but they weren't "evil". Because if that were really true, it wouldn't have been so easy to overthrow SOPA with public opinion.

My point is that the protests only hastened the process -- because many law-makers were already leaning in that direction.

"Many" is not the same as "majority."

I agree. But based on ProPublica's comments above about how "supporters" were actually counted, I'm simply pointing out the majority was probably exaggerated.

[Catelf]

"Piracy".
This is probably a hypothetical question .... And some would think it is simply not possible.
But, what would happen if Nature, and the planet itself decided to go "Copyright laws" on "humanity"s ass?

All rights would go to the true copyright and patent-holders: Nature.
Music? Has music ever been developed without the inspiration of nature?
Art? ....Same thing.
Has Nature gotten the payout from being the True, Original, Real Copyright holders?
No.
Instead it has just been used, used, and used again.

Thing is, Nature don't need copyright laws, so why are humans delusional, thinking they have done something "new", when all they have done, has been copying, or trying to copy, things before them?
....

Without watching Black Lagoon on Megaupload, i would not have bought it on DVD, which i has.

[greep]

There's no reason to get existential about copyright law. It wasn't created to uphold some "right to ideas", it was so individuals could discuss and develop their own ideas to advance society without some corporate thug stealing the idea because the original guy didn't have the monetary capability to produce said idea. It's not copyright that's bad, which is completely and 100% necessary in a capitalist society, it's just it's handled in a completely absurd way, and it gets worse every year.

[Rusky]

My point is that their original list of supporters and opponents was probably weighted towards supporters. As they said themselves, if a congressman hadn't spoken out loudly, or said he wouldn't support SOPA in its current form, he might be listed as a supporter anyway.

However, I don't deny that there were many SOPA supporters before the protest. Maybe even enough to pass it... although I'm skeptical of that.

If you didn't notice, most senators who hadn't said anything were actually unlisted. The examples you give of people who merely "hadn't spoken out loudly" were still working toward *something* with many of the same problems as SOPA. A co-sponsor of PIPA or a supporter of an altered version of SOPA are both just as bad as a direct supporter of SOPA.

The only good thing in SOPA, and thus the only reason an altered-SOPA supporter would have been any better than SOPA supporter, was its very general goal of helping content creators, but that's extremely debatable on its own, considering that the copyright owners are not even the original content creators and their lack of "promoting the Progress of Science and useful Arts" with things like DRM and region coding.

No, there were people claiming SOPA's "true motive" wasn't piracy, but some sinister desire for control. I'm saying SOPA supporters were seriously misguided -- but they weren't "evil". Because if that were really true, it wouldn't have been so easy to overthrow SOPA with public opinion.

Can't it be both? A sinister (if not immediately or on purpose) desire for control in order to stop piracy? They can be misguided and not evil and whatever you like but SOPA really would have been misused by (and thus supported by) people who were really evil (I guess depending on your definition, but that's not the point). There is no lack of precedent for that.

Edited by Rusky, 04 February 2012 - 06:38 PM.

[Catelf]

There's no reason to get existential about copyright law. It wasn't created to uphold some "right to ideas", it was so individuals could discuss and develop their own ideas to advance society without some corporate thug stealing the idea because the original guy didn't have the monetary capability to produce said idea. It's not copyright that's bad, which is completely and 100% necessary in a capitalist society, it's just it's handled in a completely absurd way, and it gets worse every year.

The bolded:
And you mean that that hasn't happened anyway?
And now those "corporate thugs" are using copyright to earn even more, since they claim they do it for the copyright holders ...

And still, the real "copyright" lies within nature ....

People have always discussed and developed their own ideas, without the help of copyright laws.
The risk of being screwed over by corporate thugs are not really smaller today.
The thugs are just better at hiding their theft.

[chance]

My point is that their original list of supporters and opponents was probably weighted towards supporters. As they said themselves, if a congressman hadn't spoken out loudly, or said he wouldn't support SOPA in its current form, he might be listed as a supporter anyway.

If you didn't notice, most senators who hadn't said anything were actually unlisted. The examples you give of people who merely "hadn't spoken out loudly" were still working toward *something* with many of the same problems as SOPA. A co-sponsor of PIPA or a supporter of an altered version of SOPA are both just as bad as a direct supporter of SOPA.

I understand that silent congressmen weren't listed. But I think it's unfair to label supporters of "altered versions of SOPA" as being just as bad as supporters. After all, we don't really know what those "altered versions" look like. It some cases, they might resemble OPEN -- as proposed by Senators Wyden, Moran, Cantwell.

That said, you've made good arguments for why SOPA might have passed, if not for the protests. I'm still skeptical, but less so than when we began this discussion. You're a good debater. +1

No, there were people claiming SOPA's "true motive" wasn't piracy, but some sinister desire for control.

Can't it be both? A sinister (if not immediately or on purpose) desire for control in order to stop piracy?

Yes, it can be. But those aren't the comments I was laughing about. I was laughing at comments suggesting the REAL motive behind SOPA wasn't copyright/piracy at all. Here's two of my favorites from this topic:

SOPA and the other bills are not about piracy! That is purely an excuse to increase censorship and control over internet...
- Nocturne

It can't be more obvious american government is doing this to prevent information from spreading online about their immoral deeds
- krele

[greep]

And you mean that that hasn't happened anyway?

Yeah, it would happen on a scale magnitudes higher than normal without copyright. Literally anything you've seen that required investment to get off the ground? Completely impossible. Literally everything that required groups of strangers working together? Impossible. There's very few cases of outright stealing from corporations when it comes to copyright, there's that one facebook company, Zynga, and small things like super meat boy basically stealing Jumper, made here in the GMC. But we're talking a drop in a bucket here. Copyright certainly doesn't protect large variations on ideas (like terraria "stealing" minecraft which "stole" from dwarf fortress) which is a good thing.

And when I said it's just handled in a stupid way, I do mean that. Copyright is mainly so products ideas don't get immediately stolen while they're profitable. It should last a maximum of however long it takes to develop the idea + 6 months. Not 70 years or whatever, which is mindbogglingly stupid. THAT is what the big corporations profit from and the little guys not so much.

Edited by greep, 04 February 2012 - 10:43 PM.

[Rusty]

No, there were people claiming SOPA's "true motive" wasn't piracy, but some sinister desire for control. :tongue:

Can't it be both? A sinister (if not immediately or on purpose) desire for control in order to stop piracy?

MegaUpload.

They don't need this to stop piracy. Nothing about the bills actually attacks piracy, they're just attacking random websites that have user generated content. They're basically attack freedom of speech and expression on the internet.

[ihato]

Honestly, I wish they bring SOPA back, and sustain ACTA. They actually sound good.
And why would they take control of the internet in the first place?
What do they get by that?
That hypothesis just sounds silly.

[greep]

Honestly, I wish they bring SOPA back, and sustain ACTA. They actually sound good.
And why would they take control of the internet in the first place?
What do they get by that?
That hypothesis just sounds silly.

I'm guessing you don't live in the United States. If murder were legal, many corporate leaders would kill there own mother if it got them 50 bucks. I'm sure there isn't some plot to destroy the internet, but the things corporations would do for even minimal fiscal gains would severely damage free speech on the internet. Have a forum that talks smack about a corporation? Pay someone a few bucks to post pirated games on the site then take the site down. It doesn't take much imagination to consider far worse very likely scenarios.

Edited by greep, 05 February 2012 - 12:08 AM.