Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by sophomore19, Jan 18, 2012.
so how exactly will SOPA (if it passes) affect LPSG?
I'll be interested in the answer also....
Rob_E, the owner of LPSG, spoke about that very issue here and here
It's a good read, and the first link contains a link to a site where you can contact your reps in Washington. I think it's the least we can do, don't you?
It will give the federal government the authority to shut down websites it doesn't like. It's an attack on information and freedom. Information is power, and power is money. They do not want the public to have such easily accessible information, because they know we will turn on them once enough of us are awake. I suspect within a couple decades the internet will be used primarily for commerce rather than information. It's well known governments ALWAYS have their hand out for more, and in an effort to get it, tax anything and everything they can. This is just the first step...
The results of my research appear to show that if a website does not violate copyright and intellectual property, it has little or nothing to fear. As a writer who receives royalties from my intellectual property, I'm for its protection.
In full agreement with your statements. The regulation of information keeps control over those with no information. Those with little to no info are as in just as poor a condition as someone with little to no money. Their options are limited and are easily rounded into what ever situation those with money want them to be in. Keep you living in a certain area for affordability, driving certain cars, down to the quality of clothes and medical services you can get.
Applying that to information means the less you know, the easier you are to control. Not knowing what something is or what it does leaves you at the mercy of those that know the info. That makes you believe what you are being told because clearly the ones with the info are subject matter experts.
How easy is it to control or manipulate very educated people?
If this bill is nothing more than a protection of copyrights and intellectual properties then there wouldn't be such an uproar......unless there is something we've NOT been informed of.
The control starts here......
Wake up sheep-le!
go and look up the government censorship in china and then multiply that by at least 100 (probably more...), then you will get an idea of where this is going. i am against it. there has to be another way to fight piracy. seems the government will take out the entire internet and deal with the collateral damage afterwards.
to me it's like this (all metaphors, don't take me so literally)... so we know there are major terrorists in wisconsin. instead of seeking out the terrorist in the state, let's just nuke the entire state.
i don't think it will pass. there's too much at stake.
I recommend going here and signing up if you are anti-sopa https://www.google.com/landing/takeaction/
As far as I can tell it is a power grab by big media.......... according to what I have read so far they already have the means and power to do thing to protect their products they want sweeping powers to control a public air ways type thing ......... I have e-mail my feeling to both Senators as two of my Reps, please take time to send to yours to stop this. Look at how they have censored the internet since the beginning.
It's more than that. If a user here posts something that's copyrighted, the website can be shut down forever without due process. It's shutting down someone's business because some other idiot posted something he shouldn't have. There are already copyright laws in place to protect your work. Your problem is your industry is full of greed. Most music, art, video, and literature produced these days is utter shit; its sole purpose is money.
Let's use the banking industry as an example. Everyone knows it's full of fraud and corruption, but we don't dismantle the entire industry just because some people abuse it; rather, we go after the individuals who are committing the crimes. This should be handled the same way. Peer-to-peer sharing is perhaps one of the best ways to transfer information ever conceived. This bill will dismantle P2P networking, and will threaten every website that allows user participation.
You already have laws to protect you. Most of us aren't willing to sacrifice the laws we placed on our government so no one steals your book.
I'm hearing you, but doesn't the website have some responsibility? It's a major passage of the buck to say that the administration of a website can just wind up the clock and whatever plays out, plays out. It's often impossible to hold users liable because in spite of IP addresses, etc., you can't always track down the real culprit. Either someone has to accept responsibility, or the problem has to be wiped out.
The thing is, you're absolutely right that there are laws in place. We shouldn't have to pass additional laws to get them enforced, but apparently we do. Just look at youtube for an example. That there's a law on the books means nothing when people are violating copyright by distributing protected material left and right and the worst that happens is that it MIGHT get taken down after several years of chilling in public for the whole world's free and illegal use.
And yes, the industry has gone to hell and is just churning out shit for money. But they're still entitled to money for their work if people are stupid enough to want it. And what little work there is that isn't shit, like mine, becomes all the more vulnerable as a swan among swine.
I am *all* for enforcing copyright, and intellectual property laws. But this SOPA bill is just a nightmare. I genuinely believe that piracy is just the excuse they're using to get this dog passed...there is WAY too much potential for abuse, the way it's written.
Let me use this as an example...it may explain it to you.
During the 1990s, Ross Perot ran for President. During one of his speeches, he said that he had the skills to move America forward at "warp speed."
In your opinion, should ABC have been held liable, because a political candidate used 2 words in a live speech which, when combined, are a phrase owned by Paramount and the Star Trek franchise?
That's the type of overreaching nonsense we're talking about. And yes, that is a *very* real example of what this law would allow to happen. Whether it would be *enforced* in this manner is yet to be seen, but the potential for that level of abuse exists.
It's a scary prospect. Government should remain separate from information sources.
Like I said, I'm hearing you. I would still rather have liability be overly strict (any violation is a violation) than allow the abuse to wantonly continue unchecked. If SOPA is too much for your tastes, get on the phone with your senator and help work towards an alternative Act that will protect me without crossing into what you find too oppressive (my correspondance with the senators of multiple states has shown that several are underway). Signing silly, weightless online petitions trying to stop the Act isn't a complete response, and that's the thought process I'm taking issue with when people complain about the possibility of censorship. People's right to free speech doesn't pre-empt other people's right to benefit from their work.
I, too, am hearing you. And, I fully and wholeheartedly support your right to control your own work. However, that's not what SOPA is about...it's just the excuse they're using to get it passed. It's not about artistry. It's not about protecting you, or your work. It's about establishing a precedent which will allow control to be exerted.
And, government should not have that level of control over information. Period.
As for your "strict enforcement" suggestion, I could not disagree with you, more. It is this type of logic that leads, inexorably, to policies like guilty until proven innocent.
"I'd rather be overly strict and be sure that all the murderers are executed, than take a chance on one of them going free."
Slippery slope arguments are trite, and even cliche, but they're unfortunately, all too often, proven correct. Human nature is not something to be trifled with...if it can go bad, it will, eventually.
Copyright law was suposed to only protect works for a very limited time, so the creators would have to produce more works to continue making a living.
now we have copyrights that last a hundred years or more and corps robbing artists to buy corporate jets and yachts, while funding censorship bill like SOPA & PIPA so they can shut down sites that might link to possible copyrights violators.
Comparing it to executing murderers is not a valid analogy. When executing murder defendants, the question is whether or not they did it and the courts can decide incorrectly, but when holding copyright violators liable, you can always tell whether they were authorized to distribute the material they did (excpet in gray areas of public domain law, which needs clarification itself).
That's a red herring. This isn't about the length of time for which a copyright is or has been valid; it's about enforcing copyright law as it exists.
I have to disagree. the acceptance of piracy was generated by lengthening of copyrights.
Things like sony selling cd's with malware were just nails in the coffin.
Whether or not the lengthening of copyrights is responsible for the widespread acceptance of piracy is debatable, but they are still separate issues. It makes no difference why people feel the desire to break laws.
And, they must all be punished, for even the slightest infraction, to the maximum extent of the law.