Submitted by Maureen Gorman (not verified) on Tue, 2012-01-17 20:16
Neighborhood/City:
Old Irving Park (Chicago)
I understand that there are dangers in overbearing government regulation of Internet free speech, but I also recognize that holders of intellectual property need protection from the abuses of piracy. It's not just the entertainment industry that's impacted by plagiarism and theft. Small businesses, artists and many others are also victimized. Is it too much to expect money-making Internet search engines, or even Wikipedia, to be responsible for presenting only legal content?
Submitted by Cara (not verified) on Tue, 2012-01-17 23:20
Neighborhood/City:
Glen Ellyn (Suburbs)
Why Chris Dodd is not in prison still amazes me.
He has long been the insurance industry's favorite money-man who has helped kill any health-care reform and premium cost reductions for the last 20 years. He blocked regulators on Fannie/Freddie that helped ruin the housing market. Then he and Barney got together to shove Dodd-Frank down our throats to hurt the small business banking sector in favor of the large banksters. Now he is Hollywood's spear head ready to censor the internet.
Dodd and SOPA are exactly why Washington is broke. If HR3261 passes, we will begin 2012 as business as usual in Washington: the 1% big money buying out our elected official's votes to suppress innovation and freedom.
Kudos to google and silicon valley for standing up to these big pocketed greedy bullies. I know two innovative and fast growing companies that will immediately relocate to another country if this bill passes.
Submitted by Sue ellen Levins (not verified) on Wed, 2012-01-18 11:47
Neighborhood/City:
Lincoln Park (Chicago)
Obviously, theft of intellectual property must be stopped. Without adequate compensation, creativity will grind to a halt. There will be less original music, original art, and new films. Nobody can afford to work for free. On the other hand, internet providers must be free to provide access to legitimate content without fear of liability.
Both sides in this argument make their livings through creativity. Lock ‘em both up in a room until the come up with a viable solution. I guarantee they’ll successfully resolve the issue before Congress does.
Submitted by richard o (not verified) on Wed, 2012-01-18 13:56
Neighborhood/City:
Lakeview (Chicago)
The only result of SOPA would be a bad one. It cannot stop piracy but could stop a lot of legitimate content. Once the government names a site as having pirated content, it could be only a matter of hours before that site was on a new domain and up and running again. It only takes an e-mail to users of the former site to let them know where to go - or is the government planning on reading every e-mail as well (even if they did, the process of declaring the new site in violation would take time and they could never win the endless site moves/government declares new site illegal cycle). So, SOPA has no chance against piracty. However, it has huge chance of shutting or impairing legitimate sites like YouTube, Wikipedia and so on. SOPA cannot stop those determined to post copyrighted material illegally, it can only hurt the legitimate sites that do not have that goal.
With any site that allows users to post there is always the potential that some copyrighted material will be available. The larger the site the harder it is for the site managers to police and the more site managers you need to police it. With truly large sites (i.e. Facebook) it would be virtually impossible to keep up with the posts (or require so many site managers it would be economically impossible). So, under SOPA some user posts content, some watchdog finds it and declares Facebook in violation of the law. Facebook is then liable for a shutdown,fine or law suit based on a posting they did not put up and had no control over - again how long before Facebook has to just shut down? In a world where a site can be shut down, fined or sued because of what a user posts you end up with a world where there are no sites that allow users to post.
Where is the line drawn? Sure it is obvious that if I put a pirated movie somewhere that is an illegal act. Is it illegal if I post a single still shot from the movie as part of a review? How about if I post a homemade video lipsyncing a song on YouTube? What if I am actually singing the song and not lipsyncing? What if I post a videogame walkthrough or hint site that includes screen shots? What if, as part of a discussion, I post quotes from an author's work?
what exactly is pirated copyright material and why should we expect the government to correctly define it (especially since it appears that the government is listening to industry lobbyists)?
What about the other side of things? Is the government going to compensate sites if it turns out they were incorrectly shut down? Even a few hours of shut down can costs sites thousands of dollars. What happens when a mistake is made? Of course everyone knows that the government never makes any mistakes so SOPA doesn't need to worry about that I guess.
SOPA is a law that cannot do what it proposes to do but could do a vast amount of harm that it does not intend.
Submitted by Howard N. (not verified) on Fri, 2012-01-20 14:10
Copyright infringement is a real issue, since the infringement can take place outside the US while on internet sites accessible in the US. However, the internet provides a platform both for a booming economy, benefiting both small business and jobs, and for free speech. The current legislation needs to be fixed to assure these freedoms are not limited in any way.
Video Archive
Sopa is NOT the answer.
A better alternative to SOPA and PIPA is OPEN http://www.keepthewebopen.com/
SOPA and the protection of intellectual property
I understand that there are dangers in overbearing government regulation of Internet free speech, but I also recognize that holders of intellectual property need protection from the abuses of piracy. It's not just the entertainment industry that's impacted by plagiarism and theft. Small businesses, artists and many others are also victimized. Is it too much to expect money-making Internet search engines, or even Wikipedia, to be responsible for presenting only legal content?
SOPA crushes innovation - HR3261 is written by Dodd
Why Chris Dodd is not in prison still amazes me.
He has long been the insurance industry's favorite money-man who has helped kill any health-care reform and premium cost reductions for the last 20 years. He blocked regulators on Fannie/Freddie that helped ruin the housing market. Then he and Barney got together to shove Dodd-Frank down our throats to hurt the small business banking sector in favor of the large banksters. Now he is Hollywood's spear head ready to censor the internet.
Dodd and SOPA are exactly why Washington is broke. If HR3261 passes, we will begin 2012 as business as usual in Washington: the 1% big money buying out our elected official's votes to suppress innovation and freedom.
Kudos to google and silicon valley for standing up to these big pocketed greedy bullies. I know two innovative and fast growing companies that will immediately relocate to another country if this bill passes.
Dodd belongs in jail.
SOPA
Obviously, theft of intellectual property must be stopped. Without adequate compensation, creativity will grind to a halt. There will be less original music, original art, and new films. Nobody can afford to work for free. On the other hand, internet providers must be free to provide access to legitimate content without fear of liability.
Both sides in this argument make their livings through creativity. Lock ‘em both up in a room until the come up with a viable solution. I guarantee they’ll successfully resolve the issue before Congress does.
SOPA can't work
The only result of SOPA would be a bad one. It cannot stop piracy but could stop a lot of legitimate content. Once the government names a site as having pirated content, it could be only a matter of hours before that site was on a new domain and up and running again. It only takes an e-mail to users of the former site to let them know where to go - or is the government planning on reading every e-mail as well (even if they did, the process of declaring the new site in violation would take time and they could never win the endless site moves/government declares new site illegal cycle). So, SOPA has no chance against piracty. However, it has huge chance of shutting or impairing legitimate sites like YouTube, Wikipedia and so on. SOPA cannot stop those determined to post copyrighted material illegally, it can only hurt the legitimate sites that do not have that goal.
With any site that allows users to post there is always the potential that some copyrighted material will be available. The larger the site the harder it is for the site managers to police and the more site managers you need to police it. With truly large sites (i.e. Facebook) it would be virtually impossible to keep up with the posts (or require so many site managers it would be economically impossible). So, under SOPA some user posts content, some watchdog finds it and declares Facebook in violation of the law. Facebook is then liable for a shutdown,fine or law suit based on a posting they did not put up and had no control over - again how long before Facebook has to just shut down? In a world where a site can be shut down, fined or sued because of what a user posts you end up with a world where there are no sites that allow users to post.
Where is the line drawn? Sure it is obvious that if I put a pirated movie somewhere that is an illegal act. Is it illegal if I post a single still shot from the movie as part of a review? How about if I post a homemade video lipsyncing a song on YouTube? What if I am actually singing the song and not lipsyncing? What if I post a videogame walkthrough or hint site that includes screen shots? What if, as part of a discussion, I post quotes from an author's work?
what exactly is pirated copyright material and why should we expect the government to correctly define it (especially since it appears that the government is listening to industry lobbyists)?
What about the other side of things? Is the government going to compensate sites if it turns out they were incorrectly shut down? Even a few hours of shut down can costs sites thousands of dollars. What happens when a mistake is made? Of course everyone knows that the government never makes any mistakes so SOPA doesn't need to worry about that I guess.
SOPA is a law that cannot do what it proposes to do but could do a vast amount of harm that it does not intend.
SOPA
Copyright infringement is a real issue, since the infringement can take place outside the US while on internet sites accessible in the US. However, the internet provides a platform both for a booming economy, benefiting both small business and jobs, and for free speech. The current legislation needs to be fixed to assure these freedoms are not limited in any way.
Add new comment