House Panel Moving Forward With SOPA

itwbennett writes "The House Judiciary Committee has scheduled a debate and vote on the Stop Online Piracy Act for later this week. Representative Lamar Smith, the committee chairman and main sponsor of the bill, will offer an amendment that is meant to address some concerns with the bill. Smith's proposed amendment would clarify that the bill applies only to foreign websites, not U.S. sites, accused of aiding copyright infringement."

What worries me most.

[RivenAleem]

I don't know what worries me most, that politicians in America really believe this is good for the country, or that politicians in America are so deep in the pockets of the corporations to push this through.

Really?

[CastrTroy]

I've heard a lot of bad things about this bill. I don't think it's a good bill, and hope it doesn't pass (even though it most likely will). But I'm hearing so much FUD from the people against this bill that it makes me roll my eyes every time I hear about it . Sites like StackOverflow and the Stack Exchange Network [stackoverflow.com] state they their sites could be directly harmed by this bill. PLLEEEAAASE. Get Real. No judge is going to take down a Q and A forum because somebody reports that one of the 8 million questions on the site is infringing on some copyrighted question (can you copyright a single question?) in some way. That isn't going to happen. People complain about the way things are worded, and that it's too broad. But that's what judges are for. Laws have always been broad and judges have always had to interpret them. This is how the legal system works. Otherwise you could argue, "I didn't kill the man, I just locked him in a cage with a lion." There's really no other way to take down access to foreign owned piracy exclusive sites. And there really does need to be a way to take sites like this down.

Re:Just another provocation of war

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't want to give the government anymore power than they have now.

Let me ask you: why do they need this power? If they show a website to be dedicated to offering copyrighted material for download, then can't they already ask a judge to take it down/seize the domain (right now they're just taking them away without any oversight)? What more power do they need? Seriously.

What it's going to allow them to do is take down access to sites like The Pirate Bay that are "dedicated" (this word appears a lot in the wikipedia article) to copyright infringement.

They're humans, not saints. Mistakes happen. Sometimes they're corrupt.

Re:In other words

[jythie]

Well, part of the modern argument is that only US citizens have rights and that the constitution does not apply to people outside the country.. which kinda goes against the whole 'inalienable rights' concept.

SOPA violoates the constitution

[ZenDragon]

Interesting article written by a Harvard Law professor detailing specific cases show how SOPA violates the constitution. http://www.scribd.com/doc/75153093/Tribe-Legis-Memo-on-SOPA-12-6-11-1 [scribd.com]