Sorry, protecting Pirate Bay and offshore gambling are not compelling counterarguments.
Joel Send a noteboard - 18/01/2012 11:38:08 AM
This isn't a security bill, it's a copyright/censorship bill.
And, more to the point, and the reason people who know what they're talking about (of which I am barely one, so bear with me) are so upset, is that it creates the infrastructure for potentially more restrictive things. It creates infrastructure for censorship (and much more, as more and more things become "online".)
I was reading this short piece written by someone from Denmark-
Source- the url space didn't work for some reason
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111221/03420017156/how-sopa-creates-architecture-much-more-widespread-censorship.shtml#c710
And, more to the point, and the reason people who know what they're talking about (of which I am barely one, so bear with me) are so upset, is that it creates the infrastructure for potentially more restrictive things. It creates infrastructure for censorship (and much more, as more and more things become "online".)
I was reading this short piece written by someone from Denmark-
7 years ago we got a child pornography filter on the Internet in Denmark. Some people said that it was a bad idea, but others said these people were just paedophiles, or trying to help paedophiles. Some people said that it was against our constitution, which it was. So the censorship was implemented in a way so it was formally (but not in reality) voluntary, which ensured that it was not formally a violation of our constitution.
Some people warned that once the censorship infrastructure was in place, it would most likely be used to censor other things. But they were told "Never! This is ONLY to prevent this horrible crime, and will never be used for other censorship."
Fast-forward a few years, and the Danish recording industry did not like allofmp3.com, so they went to court to get a court order against the Danish ISPs to start censoring allofmp3 off the Danish Internet. The judge basically said "ahh, you already have the infrastructure in place, so there will be no extra cost", and issued the order to censor allofmp3.com. It was not a violation of our constitution because it was ordered by a judge.
Since then other "pirate" sites have been censored. Most notably The Pirate Bay, which found out that the court would not even allow them to speak their case in court, or even submit a written brief.
Then our politicians found out that they wanted to protect and expand income from taxes. In particular the high taxes gambling providers pay. The official excuse was to limit the horrible disease of ludomania. So they decided that foreign gambling providers had to pay the taxes in Denmark too if they were on the Internet and could be seen in Denmark. If they refused to pay taxes, they should be censored off the Danish internet. So they passed a law saying that if a foreign gambling provider refused to pay taxes in Denmark, a court would - on the request of our government - have to order ISPs to censor its sites off the net, and payment processors to block all payments to it. If an ISP does not censor, or a payment processor or bank does not block payment, hefty fines are issued.
Now our politicians worry that some foreign companies selling medicines on the net are not licensed to sell medicines in Denmark. So they are preparing new legislation that will censor these sites off the net, and block payments to them.
So our Internet censorship started a few years ago with a very limited purpose and good intentions. And it was solemnly promised that nothing else than child pornography would be censored.
But once the infrastructure for censorship was in place, the censorship started spreading to other areas. And the censorship is getting more and more widespread.
Some people warned that once the censorship infrastructure was in place, it would most likely be used to censor other things. But they were told "Never! This is ONLY to prevent this horrible crime, and will never be used for other censorship."
Fast-forward a few years, and the Danish recording industry did not like allofmp3.com, so they went to court to get a court order against the Danish ISPs to start censoring allofmp3 off the Danish Internet. The judge basically said "ahh, you already have the infrastructure in place, so there will be no extra cost", and issued the order to censor allofmp3.com. It was not a violation of our constitution because it was ordered by a judge.
Since then other "pirate" sites have been censored. Most notably The Pirate Bay, which found out that the court would not even allow them to speak their case in court, or even submit a written brief.
Then our politicians found out that they wanted to protect and expand income from taxes. In particular the high taxes gambling providers pay. The official excuse was to limit the horrible disease of ludomania. So they decided that foreign gambling providers had to pay the taxes in Denmark too if they were on the Internet and could be seen in Denmark. If they refused to pay taxes, they should be censored off the Danish internet. So they passed a law saying that if a foreign gambling provider refused to pay taxes in Denmark, a court would - on the request of our government - have to order ISPs to censor its sites off the net, and payment processors to block all payments to it. If an ISP does not censor, or a payment processor or bank does not block payment, hefty fines are issued.
Now our politicians worry that some foreign companies selling medicines on the net are not licensed to sell medicines in Denmark. So they are preparing new legislation that will censor these sites off the net, and block payments to them.
So our Internet censorship started a few years ago with a very limited purpose and good intentions. And it was solemnly promised that nothing else than child pornography would be censored.
But once the infrastructure for censorship was in place, the censorship started spreading to other areas. And the censorship is getting more and more widespread.
Source- the url space didn't work for some reason
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111221/03420017156/how-sopa-creates-architecture-much-more-widespread-censorship.shtml#c710
Which is a great example of what I am talking about here: If people want to argue existing penalties against already illegal activity are sufficient, that is a sound argument to make; in THAT respect (only) it is even a good argument against any additional laws. However, when people argue already illegal activity should not BE illegal, and therefore NO penalty is valid, they're in the same boat as people who want to legalize recreational drugs: Good luck getting the feds to go for that.
From the little I have read it is both a security and censorship bill, because it would restrict access to web content, which includes a lot of intelligence and strategic data, as well as paths to access more. The funny thing is that if a nominally legitimate site were discovered hosting dozens of foreign espionage programs the feds would almost certainly take it down the moment that was discovered. The government already has the POWER; it is simply considering legislation whereby it would USE that power far more often and broadly. Once again, anyone who dislikes the proposed use of that power is best served by offering an alternative, not categorically opposing its use on principle, which was never on the table in the first place.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
English Wikipedia Anti-SOPA Blackout
17/01/2012 08:31:46 AM
- 2106 Views
Yeah, man, because currently copyright holders have no recourse, am I right?
17/01/2012 11:47:35 AM
- 940 Views
"altering the infrastructure of the Internet so as to render RAFO virtually inaccessible"?
17/01/2012 08:12:27 PM
- 1043 Views
I'll go ahead and ask before I get my panties in a bunch: do you understand these bills?
17/01/2012 09:09:22 PM
- 1133 Views
I admit I have not looked into it much
17/01/2012 11:42:30 PM
- 989 Views
And yet you're still arguing the matter.
18/01/2012 02:34:04 AM
- 1095 Views
I love you. *NM*
18/01/2012 03:41:03 AM
- 633 Views
heh, thanks. I usually find myself pushing minority opinions. Nice to be "appreciated" for once. *NM*
18/01/2012 04:01:10 AM
- 620 Views
Can i second the adulation?
18/01/2012 04:07:17 AM
- 825 Views
I too (three?) appreciate the common sense and reasonable explanations. *NM*
18/01/2012 04:12:59 AM
- 618 Views
Right, because the argument is not just over THIS bill but, apparently, over ANY bill.
18/01/2012 11:09:13 AM
- 991 Views
Alternatives to SOPA/PIPA have been proposed for months now. Please stop arguing this.
18/01/2012 05:42:10 PM
- 944 Views
Also, in the case of the OPEN Act, it has not "been proposed for months."
18/01/2012 07:28:15 PM
- 1409 Views
"sensitive federal content"? Provide a source justifying this claim and it's relevance, please.
18/01/2012 05:59:47 PM
- 1007 Views
I would not have thought a source necessary.
18/01/2012 06:24:44 PM
- 1004 Views
Okay, I'm with Aemon now.
18/01/2012 07:36:21 PM
- 1018 Views
OK.
18/01/2012 10:16:16 PM
- 1040 Views
should be interesting
17/01/2012 12:41:47 PM
- 863 Views
Could be; depends on a lot of factors.
17/01/2012 07:38:55 PM
- 931 Views
See, that's one of the biggest problems that people aren't understanding.
17/01/2012 09:31:38 PM
- 949 Views
So tell them that.
17/01/2012 11:54:19 PM
- 1092 Views
Joel, I think I'm done with this unless you want to do some research.
18/01/2012 02:53:19 AM
- 896 Views
Research would tell me what is wrong with these bills and how a good bill should look.
18/01/2012 11:22:46 AM
- 1013 Views
Could've done without the snide rejoinder, but, good.
17/01/2012 02:20:08 PM
- 867 Views
I love the black banner, like some kind of internet Holocaust.
17/01/2012 08:03:27 PM
- 1008 Views
Are you aware that SOPA/PIPA has nothing to do with hackers and everything to do with copyright?
18/01/2012 02:08:56 AM
- 849 Views
There seems to be some overlap.
18/01/2012 01:08:22 PM
- 972 Views
Re: There seems to be some overlap.
18/01/2012 08:13:15 PM
- 844 Views
Re: There still seems to be some overlap.
18/01/2012 10:27:32 PM
- 1108 Views
Re: There still seems to be some overlap.
18/01/2012 11:30:39 PM
- 963 Views
Just because the news does not mention something does not automatically make it non-applicable.
19/01/2012 04:08:58 PM
- 977 Views
Re: Just because the news does not mention something does not automatically make it non-applicable.
19/01/2012 10:39:40 PM
- 962 Views
If you re-read your last sentence it should be clear why this law is being pushed.
20/01/2012 09:12:29 PM
- 1244 Views
Re: If you re-read your last sentence it should be clear why this law is being pushed.
21/01/2012 03:19:49 AM
- 870 Views
Er, what Ghav said.
18/01/2012 02:30:37 AM
- 874 Views
Sorry, protecting Pirate Bay and offshore gambling are not compelling counterarguments.
18/01/2012 11:38:08 AM
- 915 Views
Okay, another analogy:
18/01/2012 02:04:12 PM
- 900 Views
The devil is always in the details, and it seems clear the details need great revision.
18/01/2012 03:31:20 PM
- 905 Views
what they SHOULD do is stop taking money from proponents of sopa/pipa
18/01/2012 03:51:09 PM
- 1021 Views
Yes, they should, but, once again, that approach will not prevent a new law.
18/01/2012 04:05:02 PM
- 994 Views
Re: The devil is always in the details, and it seems clear the details need great revision.
18/01/2012 04:27:30 PM
- 944 Views
If the US government wants to summarily block sites within the US, it already can and will.
18/01/2012 06:15:53 PM
- 895 Views
You know all this anti-SOPA bullshit is making me hope the bill passes.
18/01/2012 04:00:17 AM
- 961 Views
I would not go THAT far; it seems clear these bills have many objectionable provisions.
18/01/2012 11:41:23 AM
- 985 Views
Re: I would not go THAT far; it seems clear these bills have many objectionable provisions.
19/01/2012 01:57:46 AM
- 809 Views
Yeah, the extreme bias on both sides is why the bills will likely pass more or less as written.
19/01/2012 03:31:52 PM
- 992 Views
joel, you need to consider three things
18/01/2012 06:06:16 AM
- 954 Views
You need to consider that they WILL pass some legislation, and what you want it to contain.
18/01/2012 12:15:38 PM
- 1002 Views
again, it's not about piracy, it's about protecting the mpaa/riaa business model at our expense
18/01/2012 03:34:32 PM
- 1076 Views
Yeah, see, that is the problem: "it's not about piracy."
18/01/2012 03:57:55 PM
- 914 Views
if piracy is such a problem then the mpaa/riaa need to PROVE their losses
19/01/2012 02:43:31 AM
- 934 Views
How do you expect anyone to prove what people WOULD HAVE bought if they could not just take it?
19/01/2012 03:57:24 PM
- 1218 Views
A technical examination of SOPA and PROTECT IP
18/01/2012 08:32:44 AM
- 878 Views
"As a disclaimer, I am not a lawyer, I'm a sysadmin."
18/01/2012 12:47:16 PM
- 1139 Views
Wikipedia has already convinced me
18/01/2012 03:26:01 PM
- 759 Views
Trying to stop this legislation without proposing an alternative is trying to stop ANY legislation.
18/01/2012 03:44:18 PM
- 984 Views
It isn't their job to propose legislation
18/01/2012 04:12:53 PM
- 904 Views
No, but they have as much RIGHT to do so as anyone else.
18/01/2012 05:31:55 PM
- 883 Views
Strike three.
18/01/2012 05:37:55 PM
- 941 Views
That is fine; that is what people SHOULD be doing.
18/01/2012 06:03:59 PM
- 757 Views
Things being better now than they would be under SOPA seems like a legitimate argument to me
18/01/2012 09:04:18 PM
- 1020 Views
Against SOPA, sure; against ANY new law, no.
18/01/2012 10:46:48 PM
- 863 Views
About "proposing new legislation"
18/01/2012 04:45:08 PM
- 1020 Views
So true
18/01/2012 05:08:45 PM
- 958 Views
Re: About "proposing new legislation"
18/01/2012 05:59:55 PM
- 1095 Views
Hm, you should read my post one above about combatting online piracy.
18/01/2012 06:20:16 PM
- 1047 Views
I would not recommend photocopying a book and handing it out on street corners.
18/01/2012 06:45:52 PM
- 968 Views
Not to blame, neccessarily. But you have to live in the real world.
18/01/2012 07:31:18 PM
- 889 Views
Re: Not to blame, neccessarily. But you have to live in the real world.
18/01/2012 08:55:59 PM
- 978 Views
I always liked the codewheels SSI provided with copies of their Gold Box AD&D games.
18/01/2012 10:07:40 PM
- 1099 Views
These are really different arguments
19/01/2012 12:05:10 AM
- 869 Views
TV is slightly different, because regional availability becomes a factor.
19/01/2012 04:18:58 PM
- 863 Views
Yeah, so I use Russian wikipedia for a day. Or German wikipedia, or French, or Italian... *NM*
18/01/2012 06:23:36 PM
- 672 Views
Or just hit stop right before the script runs. *NM*
18/01/2012 06:52:40 PM
- 654 Views
Or just disable Java. *NM*
19/01/2012 01:58:03 AM
- 518 Views
That's not as much fun though. *NM*
19/01/2012 02:13:44 AM
- 645 Views
Exactly, this way its kind of a game. *NM*
19/01/2012 02:20:37 AM
- 459 Views
I really don't see the fun in that. Wikipedia is just a tool, not a game. *NM*
19/01/2012 04:59:14 AM
- 561 Views
I don't know about those (except French), but none of the ones I ever used are remotely as good. *NM*
18/01/2012 08:13:47 PM
- 646 Views
Russian wikipedia is very good if you're not checking some obscure Western cultural phenomena.
19/01/2012 01:57:43 AM
- 1043 Views
Or Answers.com, or even the actual sources that are often copy/pasted into Wikipedia...
19/01/2012 01:07:38 AM
- 1007 Views
Re: Or Answers.com, or even the actual sources that are often copy/pasted into Wikipedia... *NM*
19/01/2012 01:34:46 AM
- 692 Views
Oh, no; now Congress will be inundated with complaints from lazy college students!
19/01/2012 04:40:12 PM
- 1029 Views
13 previously unopposed senators now do not support SOPA.
19/01/2012 11:36:15 PM
- 990 Views
How does that "rebutt" what was a facetious post in the first place?
20/01/2012 09:24:27 PM
- 1092 Views