Not “wild”. Functional. If a law like this is passed and enforced the American internet will be severely crippled. And there will be an “American internet” and “Everyone Else’s Internet”.
A culturally impoverished mass of angry people who are being forced to pay money to people they hate or break the law if they want any sort of entertainment at all. In an economy even worse than it is now, most likely.
Did you miss the part where a court decides who is in violation? 
How does that relate to actually proving a violation occurred?
The bill allows for a court to order a shutdown but does not mandate a trial is necessary for the order to go through. Or even really that any evidence of violation has been examined, except by the AG’s office.
If the bill required a full court trial with all the rules of evidence such a trial implied, there wouldn’t be this type of opposition.
I called my Congressman’s office today to suggest he not vote for this bill.
Not only would it likely force YouTube to prophylactically eliminate enormous numbers of fair-use cases just to survive, even after that it would be a tool to suddenly suppress any site that annoys, say, some Arab emir, by latching onto some dubious case of infringement and calling for an injunction.
AFAIK, they don’t even have to wait on the court. They can just demand that funding get cut, and the accused company has 5 days to react or something like that.
Guys, this bill is bullshit. There is nothing wrong with the way the DMCA works right now, beyond perhaps the absolutely ridiculous way it dealt with DRM and fair use (i.e. it’s too nice to these companies). A law like SOPA is just incredibly bad. It’s a job-killer, having the potential to put major commercial sites that rely on user-based content like Facebook, Youtube, and 4chan out of business. It relegates permissions over the net more and more to the major corporations and others who have no business controlling the internet. They don’t care about the usability of the net. They, more often than not, don’t care about Fair Use, unless the legal issues may come back to bite them in the ass. They only care about their own profits. This must be stopped.
I’m violating my general policy of not bringing up other threads to say this:
For those of you who believe that congress is supposed to do what they think is right, how can you object to this? It’s pretty clear that the majority of congress thought this was a good idea.
The bill hasn’t passed either house, so I’m not sure how its clear that the majority of Congress thinks its a good idea.
But I don’t see how thinking Congress should do what they think is right means you can’t object to to their conception of whats right, or the bills they pass.
I’m sure that line of thinking went really well for the Wisconsin legislature and Scott Walker. Oh wait…
What really bugs me about this is that there is no rational, well-informed person who could possibly support this law.
The fact that it was reported to have broad support in both parties, at least, until actual citizens got involved.
As for the rest, I erred in even bringing it up in this thread. But I’ll quickly say that I do not agree. To argue that something is a good thing, the results must not be this horribly negative.
So we have the MPAA, RIAA, and other such industries supporting this bill. On the other, we have every ISP and secondary content provider on the Internet. Does Comcast like this bill or not?
What are the chances of this thing passing? Or surviving a legal challenge (which I think we all agree is probably inevitable) if it does?
It’s Congress.
Slim to none assuming the opposition keeps up a fraction of the vigilance it has now. The Senate can’t overcome a filibuster, the House doesn’t have enough support yet, and if Congress can’t even pass the most banal legislation already then how can they pass this controversial bill?
The bill is designed to kill competition for entertainment-industry incumbents, with infringement as a pretext. It’s that simple.
Why bother with false accusations? You can just post infringing content on the site forum and make it a true accusation under SOPA standards.
Political and other discussion sites would be particularly vulnerable (and, to contimue my previous content, this is IMO a feature rather than a bug for the bill writers).
I have not read the bill but I’m generally against the idea and moreso from what I have read. This is another case of a continuing to modify antiquated laws to fit in a society where they don’t make sense. The whole extension of copyright laws to ridiculous lengths was bad enough but the internet is a completely different beast. The correct answer here is to realize that existing laws just don’t make any sense anymore and we need to reevaluate the intention behind those laws and what makes sense in a modern digital world.
Here we have longlasting businesses with business models that aren’t adapting quickly enough to the modern age. I think as we get farther and farther, the only real answer is that, with a few exceptions like film, the costs associated with creating content from these companies just isn’t necessary anymore. Music is an excellent example of this where the large labels are always complaining about how much money they’ve lost, but so many smaller ones have made adjustments to their business models and are flourishing. Rather than making an album with only one or two decent tracks and strong arming people into spending $19 for those two tracks, no wonder people want to steal it. They used to have to do this so people didn’t feel ripped off to buy a CD and only get a few tracks on it, so they’d put on all that filler but it just doesn’t make sense in a digital age. Instead, if they can create an entire album of worthwhile tracks for the same price or only a few tracks for a lesser price, people will be more inclined to pay for it and they don’t waste resources generating content that people don’t want. Because, really, the need for labels in music is pretty much gone when all a band needs is enough money for a producer and some studio time, because digitally releasing an doesn’t require the resources of a label these days.
Either way, this just sounds like a terrible law and I will certainly actively vote against my representative or senators if any of them support it.
I’ve talked with Sen. Corker about this, although he’s dealing with the Senate Version, the Protect IP Act. I don’t fully understand the differences betweent he version at this time, but I urged him to consider the issues at stake and the act itself. He is one of the many co-sponsors (Sen. Leahy-D is the lead Sponsor) I also sent a message that he should consider what implications the bill might have on his own campaign. It would be hilarious to take down the entire .gov site through this law, for instance.
I expect that the most Congresspeople simply don’t understand what the bill does. The simple explanation sounds as though it’s a trivial aspect of law enforcement: you prove you own something, and the courts force somone to stop using it. They just don’t understand the ramifications of that.
Now that attempts to slip it though unnoticed have failed, Plan B is apparently an exercise in turd-polishing:
You gotta love how shamelessly brazen he is (“We will come forward with language”) about the fact that the elected representatives of the people are just coin-operated favor dispensers to him.
Nothing wrong with that. In fact, here’s my attempt at an amended SOP Act that I believe addresses all of our concerns:
This space intentionally left blank(Spoilered for length)
It seems that the latest news are depressing, virtually all proposed amendments that would take care of the concerns expressed here and elsewhere were voted down, the congress critters are still discussing SOPA, but it seems that they are listening more to the lobbies than to the people.
Time to call the heavy artillery:
And we all have to call or send a note to our congress critters.