Today in Copyrights, about SOPA,

123
Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

CapitaFK

Senior Member

01-19-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dobagoh View Post
So you believe anything someone tells you, without reference to the facts which may or may not support their argument, just because they haven't crossed an arbitrary threshold of age?
Have you heard their arguments? What makes you say they don't reference facts? Why so angry?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Dobagoh

Member

01-19-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by CapitaFK View Post
Have you heard their arguments? What makes you say they don't reference facts? Why so angry?
Because that's what they're actually doing. I'm extremely hostile to people who make claims because they read something that is completely unsubstantiated (e.g., the NDAA specifically states that a) US Citizens cannot be detained by the military and b) the NDAA doesn't affect existing law on the arrest of US Citizens, yet people continue to believe no such language occurs because someone somewhere said so without so much as a fart in the general direction of the language in the NDAA.)

Not once in any article written by someone anti-SOPA have they ever cited to statutory language in the bill that supports what they claim, except in the rare circumstance that they're discussing the addition of digital streaming to criminal copyright provisions.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Ellista

Senior Member

01-19-2012

Just out of curiosity, Doba, have you ever fantasized about killing people before?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

CapitaFK

Senior Member

01-19-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dobagoh View Post
Not once in any article written by someone anti-SOPA have they ever cited to statutory language in the bill that supports what they claim, except in the rare circumstance that they're discussing the addition of digital streaming to criminal copyright provisions.
The issue isn't that SOPA directly targets free media, but that it DOESN'T mention them. Everything I've read, including statements from officials themselves, state that SOPA is entirely too broad. So what you're essentially asking for is exactly what they didn't put in the bill, and that is exactly what the problem is.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Dobagoh

Member

01-19-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellista View Post
Just out of curiosity, Doba, have you ever fantasized about killing people before?
No.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CapitaFK View Post
The issue isn't that SOPA directly targets free media, but that it DOESN'T mention them.
Why do they need to mention them?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

CapitaFK

Senior Member

01-19-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dobagoh View Post
Why do they need to mention them?
It needs to mention them because all rules need exceptions, otherwise they'd all be ultimatums and we'd essentially be in a totalitarian government. SOPA needs to guarantee these freedoms won't be effected, which it doesn't. By not mentioning certain forms of free media, it's not guaranteeing them the right to exist, and that's what everyone has a problem with. That's why SOPA isn't ready in its current form.

Consider that almost all of YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Imgurl, etc. could be considered to be infringing on several copyright laws under the current iteration of SOPA. Even Google would take a huge hit if a huge number of their paid search results are shut down under SOPA because there was a failure to specify what exactly qualified as piracy or not.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

USS BUTTPEE

Senior Member

01-19-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dobagoh View Post
Because that's what they're actually doing. I'm extremely hostile to people who make claims because they read something that is completely unsubstantiated (e.g., the NDAA specifically states that a) US Citizens cannot be detained by the military and b) the NDAA doesn't affect existing law on the arrest of US Citizens, yet people continue to believe no such language occurs because someone somewhere said so without so much as a fart in the general direction of the language in the NDAA.)
I actually pointed this out to my friends, and then they yelled at me and called me a liar.

It was sad.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Dobagoh

Member

01-19-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by CapitaFK View Post
It needs to mention them because all rules need exceptions, otherwise they'd all be ultimatums and we'd essentially be in a totalitarian government. SOPA needs to guarantee these freedoms won't be effected, which it doesn't. By not mentioning certain forms of free media, it's not guaranteeing them the right to exist, and that's what everyone has a problem with. That's why SOPA isn't ready in its current form.
Can you substantiate your argument with more than vague allusions to nothing?

Section 2 of SOPA:

"(a) Savings Clauses-
(1) FIRST AMENDMENT- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to impose a prior restraint on free speech or the press protected under the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.
(2) TITLE 17 LIABILITY- Nothing in title I shall be construed to enlarge or diminish liability, including vicarious or contributory liability, for any cause of action available under title 17, United States Code, including any limitations on liability under such title.
(b) Severability- If any provision of this Act, or the application of the provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the other provisions or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby."



Quote:
Originally Posted by CapitaFK View Post
Consider that almost all of YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Imgurl, etc. could be considered to be infringing on several copyright laws under the current iteration of SOPA. Even Google would take a huge hit if a huge number of their paid search results are shut down under SOPA because there was a failure to specify what exactly qualified as piracy or not.
Copyright infringement is different from criminal copyright violation.

Also, SOPA doesn't shut anything down, ever. If you actually read the bill, Google is within its rights to completely ignore any court order issued under SOPA, and then later claim it would be too costly to comply with the court order.

"Section 102(c)(4)(C) DEFENSE- A defendant in an action under subparagraph (A)(i) may establish an affirmative defense by showing that the defendant does not have the technical means to comply with this subsection without incurring an unreasonable economic burden, or that the order is not authorized by this subsection. Such showing shall not be presumed to be a complete defense but shall serve as a defense only for those measures for which a technical limitation on compliance is demonstrated or for such portions of the order as are demonstrated to be unauthorized by this subsection."

Furthermore, how can SOPA cause facebook, google, twitter, etc. to violate copyright law? SOPA doesn't alter substantive copyright law at all. If they were violating copyright law post-SOPA, they were violating it pre-SOPA. If the FBI could raid Google's office and arrest their CEO post-SOPA for criminal copyright violation, they could do it pre-SOPA. SOPA changes nothing on that front.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

CapitaFK

Senior Member

01-19-2012

Considering I'm neither a law student nor a law grad, I'll just leave this here:

http://cdt.org/files/pdfs/SOPA%202-pager%20final.pdf


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Irongrinder

Senior Member

01-19-2012

I have heard people who are probably making **** up about SOPA.

I've also heard people who use the direct quotations.

The direct quotations scare me more.


123