PIPA - "Kill the Internet" Bill

Azelma · **Posted:** Wed Nov 30, 2011 11:16 am

http://www.americablog.com/2011/11/pipa ... se-to.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/20 ... ting-back/

Quote:

Two bills are moving through the Senate and the House at the moment, aimed at creating a host of new controls and regulations over the internet, and threatening to change the way everybody does business and interacts online.

SOPA, or the Stop Online Piracy Act, is the House’s attempt to severely censor the internet ostensibly in order to clamp down on piracy. The companion bill in the Senate is the Protect IP Act. The two bills create an armada of new regulations that help big corporations and hurt regular people, start-ups, and clamp down on innovation.

Quote:

The problem with the bill, and its Senate companion, the PROTECT IP Act, is not in its goals: no one disagrees artists should be paid for their work. It’s that it uses illegitimate means — censoring and blocking websites like they do in repressive regimes from China to Iran — to pursue these objectives. Furthermore, each subsequent version of the bill took even more draconian steps to regulate the Internet, effectively leaving any site with a user-contributed content no choice but to pre-screen every posting to comply with the law. Try that with 50 million tweets a day.

This both scares and infuriates me.

I guess it's too much to hold out hope that Obama would veto it?

Dvergar · **Posted:** Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:04 pm

I believe Obama did say he would veto at least SOPA. I wouldn't get too worked up about it. Money is the only voice in Washington, and there are extremely wealthy companies fighting against it, so it's either going to fail (most likely), or be so watered down it won't accomplish anything.

I would be a bit more concerned about the Defense Authorization Bill, part of which would allow the government to detain US citizens on American soil indefinitely without trial and with only a suspicion of terrorist activity. If passed, it would mean *theoretically*, if you would be suspected of terrorist activity or considered a terrorist threat for any reason, they could detain you until you die of old age. You would receive no trial, you would be convicted of no crimes. Your only hope would be a waiver from the Sec of Defense.

There is no way in hell such a bill would pass a constitutional challenge, but in order to find out an American citizen is going to have to be picked up and held illegally for a significant amount of time (since these challenges aren't resolved quickly). Obama also threatened to veto this bill, but the very fact that it got past the Senate should be worrying.

Usdk · **Posted:** Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:16 pm

In the wake of these revolutions in the middle east that were largely organized by twitter and other internet sites, it would undermine our credibility as a nation if we start censoring the internet in ways we were condemming other nations of doing.

besides, the best way to fight tyranny is free flowing information, right?

Dvergar · **Posted:** Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:36 pm

Usdk wrote:

it would undermine our credibility as a nation if we start censoring the internet in ways we were condemming other nations of doing.

I wasn't aware our government had any credibility left, we've been doing the 'do as we say not as we do' act for decades.

Mns · **Posted:** Wed Nov 30, 2011 3:14 pm

I always get a kick out of the RIAA when they say "think about the artists!". There's some huge online petition that's going around that I signed, but I'm too lazy to look up the link.

Weena · **Posted:** Wed Nov 30, 2011 3:44 pm

Obscurity is a far bigger threat to most bands than piracy. Giving away music is the best way to defeat obscurity. The only difference between 'giving away' and 'piracy' is that some bands get pissed about being helped by piracy giving their music away.

The only bands that have any reason to be more worried about piracy than obscurity are big bands, and big bands aren't worrying about making it. So why they are so worried about piracy is beyond me.

Artists can put whatever stipulations they want for listening to their music, but if their smart, they'll realize it's better to sell 1000 albums and have 4000 people pirating than to sell 200 albums with nobody pirating it.

Not to mention trying to strong arm piracy is only going to piss off your market (and anybody else who uses the internet) and probably create a black market for actual pirates - people that sell bootleg copies for cheap.

Mns · **Posted:** Wed Nov 30, 2011 3:47 pm

Weena wrote:

Artists can put whatever stipulations they want for listening to their music

Libertarians: Forever naiive.

Jubbergun · **Posted:** Wed Nov 30, 2011 3:52 pm

Mns wrote:

Libertarians: Forever naiive.

I'll take naive/ignorant over belligerently stupid/asinine, it seems like a pretty good trade-off.

Your Pal,
Jubber

Mns · **Posted:** Wed Nov 30, 2011 3:58 pm

I just pictured libertarianism in my head. This guy walks up to a big group of people with a book containing all the laws. He then tears the book up and throws the scraps of paper in the air Lebron style screaming "FREE MARKET!". The room goes silent for a couple minutes until someone blurts out "Well what do we do now?". Cue the saloon music and everyone fighting and killing each other.

Yuratuhl · **Posted:** Wed Nov 30, 2011 4:03 pm

I'm not too concerned. On the one hand, I hate almost everything that PIPA and SOPA embodies, even if the underlying goal (make sure creative content is rewarded) is a good one. On the other, Google is fighting it.

So it's gonna crash and burn.

Mns · **Posted:** Wed Nov 30, 2011 4:04 pm

Facebook's fighting it too.

Yuratuhl · **Posted:** Wed Nov 30, 2011 4:07 pm

Well, pretty much anyone that provides a method through which to repost potentially copyrighted material is fighting it. That's most of the internet.

Weena · **Posted:** Wed Nov 30, 2011 4:10 pm

I liked the part where half a sentence was quoted and a snarky, unrelated remark was made.

I'm just going to assume that the other 90% that wasn't responded to is something that was agreed with. Otherwise I'm certain other remarks would have been made.

Since 90% is far more than the average, I'm going to take it as a win.

By the way, most of the people in this thread are saying things that hint to basic libertarian principles in a good way, and they are probably unaware of it.

Yuratuhl · **Posted:** Wed Nov 30, 2011 4:14 pm

That's because basic libertarian principles are "don't regulate it if it doesn't need to be regulated."

When we apply that to the internet, I'll agree with you. I like free flow of information. I like buying things online that have a long list of user-reviews. An unrestricted internet is a good thing.

When we try to apply that to capitalism, I'll disagree because that's proven to be a failure. An unrestricted free market is a disaster.

Libertarian principles aren't wholly flawed. They're just untenable in many of the instances that libertarians would like to apply them.

Weena · **Posted:** Wed Nov 30, 2011 4:23 pm

Quote:

An unrestricted free market is a disaster.

I take sleight with this because it implies we want no rules anywhere, ever.

The 90% that I didn't quote... well... I agree... and agree to disagree... and agree to slap loins with you..

Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

PIPA - "Kill the Internet" Bill

Who is online