SOPA and PIPA So Far 273
Since their inception SOPA and PIPA have raised concerns about blacklisting from online freedom advocates, and tech industry giants. Law professors worry that they could stifle growth and innovation. Other's have warned that the legislation would hurt scientific debate and open discourse on the internet. SOPA and PIPA are not without support however. In fact a wide variety of companies have backed the proposed laws, bringing together an eclectic group. After months of debate, the removal of one of the more controversial provisions, and The White House expressing its own concerns over the law in its current form, Representative Eric Cantor (R-VA) announced that he was shelving SOPA. PIPA however remains, and it is likely that a re-worked version of the House bill will be brought up soon.
About fucking time (Score:5, Insightful)
Why isn't slashdot blacking out? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why isn't slashdot blacking out? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why isn't Slashdot blacking out? It is one of those sites that could be greatly effected by this bill. Besides I need to be more productive today. And most of the sites I visit are blacked out too.
I'm willing to bet that the majority of those that would be affected by a Slashdot blackout are already against SOPA/PIPA, and already are vocal about it.
Not so with sites like Wikipedia, Google, etc.
Can you really trust congress to do what's right? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why? (Score:0, Insightful)
Why is slashdot still accessible?
Re:SOPA not dead (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course it was. The initial "shelving" of the bill was a last ditch attempt to stop January 18th, so it could continue to be passed quietly. When tech giants of the internet decided to run their message anyway... well, no point in keeping up illusions anymore, might as well actively pass it.
If SOPA/PIPA dies... (Score:5, Insightful)
If SOPA/PIPA dies in Congress, it is not because the people rose up to oppose the terrible legislation. It will die because enough corporations spoke up opposing it to outnumber the supporters.
Re:Why isn't slashdot blacking out? (Score:5, Insightful)
Personal Opinion: for sites like Slashdot, the FSF, the EEF, etc, it makes more sense to dedicate a lot of space to discussing the issue on their front pages than to black-out. Most, if not all, people going to these sites are aware of the issue. The blackouts are an awareness raiser, for sites where everyone is already aware, news and information are a more effective form of protest.
Re:About fucking time (Score:5, Insightful)
My thoughts exactly, I came in here a couple of hours ago expecting some SOPA/PIPA acknowledgement, was truly puzzled by the chirping crickets.
Also but less shocking, the lack of a banner on the issue raises the question: Is Slashdot management neutral, apolitical, or something a little more insidious?
I'm guessing apolitical, by which I mean, management keeping their opinions to themselves and allowing the users to fire the cannons from all sides, with no interference.
Re:About fucking time (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent is obviously referring to the blackout in progress. Today is a day of civil action.
Not exactly.... (Score:5, Insightful)
You're joking right? There's been a SOPA story on Slashdot atleast twice a week for the last few months..
Yeah, and I believe all from the readers. Slashdot has editors, paid staffers who ultimately decide what's posted (regardless of what the firehose says is the topmost story); there's no good reason they can't write an actual editorial or stage a protest when situations call for it.
Slashdot didn't participate in the blackout, and after multiple comments and submissions, including mine, criticizing them for being spineless punks...we get a massive pile of links spelling out a bald summary of the story so far. No opinion, no support for a cause in which they have a vested constitutional interest, nothing.
Either users submit the content and run the site, or the editor's actually have a purpose and they should show some balls. This awkward middle-ground where they never have an opinion and almost never come up with content - yet still hold final control over what stories go up and reword or cut down the summaries as they see fit - sometimes looks pretty pathetic. This is one of those times.
Re:Can you really trust congress to do what's righ (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not exactly.... (Score:5, Insightful)
What would blacking out slashdot actually do? /. wouldn't have that effect, and since it's a Tech News Aggregator it's a good place to read roundups like the one posted in this fucking article. Yes it would be affected by SOPA/PIPA tremendously, but, like Twitter, I can see it doing much more in spreading the word by remaining open and reporting on others actions, than blacking out themselves.
Closing Wikipedia and Google actually affects the normal person, and indeed, Wikipedia is the most cited example in the news. This is pretty much the first and only time BBC News has actually picked up on SOPA since it's inception, and same with murdoch-owned Sky News.
Blacking out
Whoo! Ten Points! (Score:5, Insightful)
Eric Cantor is Speaker of the House, and he's the one who 'tabled' SOPA yesterday, according to the stories we've been reading. The Speaker controls the House by controlling the schedule. He decides what gets floor time, and if he refuses to schedule something for a vote it can't become law.
No bill is actually dead, however, until the legislative year is over. If a bill "died in committee", the committee could consider a new draft or change their minds outright; if it died because the Speaker wouldn't schedule it, he could come into work the very next day and say: "Hey, that thing I said we wouldn't vote on until my mother-in-law gave me a blowjob in the back seat of my Mercedes? Well, granny puckered up last night and it was reeaal nice, so everyone pick up your clickers and put in the old yay-or-nay on this bill!"
So when he supposedly shelved SOPA yesterday Cantor wasn't making some sort of vow or invoking a rule that destroyed the bill: congresspeople could still talk about it, continue to work on it, and continue rounding up votes for or against it. Apparently they did. He was still free to change his mind, and apparently he did. So at the moment it's been re-scheduled yet again for markup.
If you don't like a bit of legislation, do not rest until the session is over. That's the only time you can be sure that particular bill won't go through.
And when I say that particular bill I mean it specifically: it happens frequently that the same proposed law, sometimes word-for-word, comes up year after year after year, in bill after bill, until it finally gets through. It happened when North Carolina effectively banned municipal broadband this year; that was the third try for that one. There could be a second, third, fourth and fifth try for SOPA until Hollywood gets what they want. Pay attention and be vigilant. Their lawyers don't sleep, and neither can you if you want a free internet.
Pfft...blacked out? (Score:3, Insightful)
Missing the point AND arrogant. Nice twofer. (Score:5, Insightful)
The point of the damn protests is to point out how inconvenient and destructive it would be for your favorite sites to disappear without notice thanks to the instant, warrantless takedowns that SOPA would enable. Leaving a major tech news site on-line, where all of their users can bitch and speculate about the protests rather than experience being cut off, actually kinda blunts the effectiveness.
Just because we get it in theory doesn't mean there's no value in solidarity or that it wouldn't be good for us to experience it firsthand for a frickin day as further impetus to prevent a future where we could experience it for a lifetime.
And ultimately, slashdot isn't that important.
Re:Not exactly.... (Score:5, Insightful)
What would blacking out slashdot actually do?
It might demonstrate the future for Slashdot if the legislation passes. Only just yesterday someone posted the full text to some MLK speech which was supposedly under copyright. I don't know if it was or not, only that it could have been and SOPA could have been used to shut the site down until it was removed. Imagine the hassle for mods, editors of dealing with trolls deliberately cutting and pasting links or text from various copyright sources because now Slashdot has a legal responsibility to clean itself up.
Sites like Slashdot really should be in the front lines because its in their own self interest that this law does not pass in its current form.
Re:Why isn't slashdot blacking out? (Score:5, Insightful)
Do something. (Score:4, Insightful)
Sent to Robert P. Casey, JR, Senator (D) from Pennsylvania:
"Big media may pay your bills, but your constituents elect you, sir. SOPA/PIPA does EVERYTHING for them and NOTHING for us. You should be ashamed of yourself for co-sponsoring PIPA. Please withdraw your support, immediately, and publicly."
SOPA will not die even if defeated in congress (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why people want to KILL SOPA? (Score:5, Insightful)
We already have absurdly long copyright terms, the censorship of software that can be used to subvert DRM (and court-ordered censorship of magazines that dare to publish links to copies of that software), and a department of "homeland security" that hijacks DNS entries in the name of protecting copyrights and trademarks. All of that is not enough? If all that is not enough, then the system needs to be fundamentally redesigned. Copyrights/trademarks/patents/trade secrets are of much lower priority than the protection of American rights and freedoms.
Re:Why people want to KILL SOPA? (Score:5, Insightful)
You should accept the following as true:
1. Piracy is bad.
2. Attempts to stop piracy will be mostly useless.
3. These attempts will cause more harm than the piracy that is prevented.
Look, I am sorry for someone whose work has been ripped off, but the hard reality is that the old paradigms no longer obtain.
See http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/01/18/0452238/cloud-computing-democratizes-digital-animation [slashdot.org] for a good example.
Re:Why people want to KILL SOPA? (Score:2, Insightful)
Piracy is a real problem
[citation needed]
Slashdot. No, I'm not trying to be funny. Read the articles and the extraordinary amount of self-justification and bragging from people who proudly proclaim their rationales.
No offense, but you need to find a better business model. Take a look at a security engineering text (I recommend Andersen's) for more information on why DRM will always fail you in the end. There is no such thing as a secure device in an insecure environment, and software DRM is even more vulnerable.
You will find no sympathy from me. If DRM+absurdly long copyrights+the DMCA+DHS hijacking DNS records+all the other things we are doing are not enough to keep your revenue stream flowing, then you need to find a different way to make money.
Better business model may eventually equate to a different way of making money may eventually equate to people just giving up and not producing. Pirates/downloaders will sneer and say one of two things: I'm exaggerating, or those who we lose won't matter. And yet look at how many utilities or applications come from tiny little companies or producers that grow into something huge, or never become a breakout hit but still hold a crucial place with their small but dedicated audience.
Sigh...but I'm preaching to the choir, so to speak. People here will never get it, not until they kill the goose that lays the proverbial golden egg and something important to them goes away. And then they'll still find a way to blame it on anyone but themselves.
Re:Not exactly.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why people want to KILL SOPA? (Score:2, Insightful)
I can go with those three points - they make sense. I'd go with a 3a or a 4, as well - no matter what happens, something of value will be lost. And that relates directly back to point #1.
Look, I am sorry for someone whose work has been ripped off
At least you have some sense of moral outrage. The vast majority of posters seem not realize that there's anyone behind the work being pirated; it's much more convenient to ascribe everything to the faceless corporations.
Re:Why people want to KILL SOPA? (Score:5, Insightful)
Better business model may eventually equate to a different way of making money may eventually equate to people just giving up and not producing.
I doubt that anyone will give up. At one time there were no copyrights on music, yet people still sang songs and created music instruments. At one time there were no copyrights on written works, but people still wrote books, to the point where huge libraries could be filled. Immensely complex and useful software is released under the terms of the GPL and other free software licenses, which encourage people to make copies with or without payment.
It is not a question of whether or not people will do creative work, it is a question of whether or not we have a system that ensures the public has access to creative works (which means more than simply ensuring that creative work is done -- what use is a painting that remains locked in a cellar somewhere?).
And yet look at how many utilities or applications come from tiny little companies
Look at how many software utilities are being given away at no cost, and look at how this company has made its way to the S&P 500 list by monetizing GPL'd software:
http://www.redhat.com/ [redhat.com]
People here will never get it,
No, we "get it" just fine -- people like you want to make money by forbidding other people from using their computers / tape recorders / etc. in certain ways. At one time, that was nothing more than a regulation on industry, because nobody could make good copies of creative works without industrial equipment. Now everyone has the necessary equipment in their homes, but there is no way that an average American is going to take the time to ask whether or not they are violating a copyright or engaging in fair use, and it is absurd to think that a typical American will have the resources needed to dispute such things in court.
The point of SOPA is to attack, head-on, one of the greatest steps forward in communication in the history of the human race. Computers and the Internet are as important as writing and the printing press were. The Internet threatens the current distribution model and regulations, much in the same way that the printing press and the ability to write did, and just as happened then, people whose incomes depended on the previous distribution model found themselves facing the loss of their jobs.
At one time, laws, entertainment, and history were not written down, but passed down orally. Communities would have people whose job was to remember things and pass that knowledge on to future generations. One day, a new technology emerged: writing. Suddenly, instead of relying on people to remember laws and stories, societies were wage to record things. The old profession died, and new professions emerged: scribes and scholars. Had you been around back then, you would have been pushing for a law that restricted writing in order to protect your job as a storyteller, and you would have insisted that all the people who said that writing should not be restricted did not "get it."
Centuries after scribes established themselves as one of the most important classes in society, a new technology emerged that threatened their profession: printing presses. The same pattern emerged: scribes lost their jobs, and new professions developed. Had you lived back then, you would have demanded a law that restricted printing presses so that you could keep your job as a scribe.
So here we are, in the 21st century, and we see the same pattern once again. Centuries after the press became fundamental to society and we built laws and businesses around it, a new technology has emerged: computer networks. Now people do not need to wait for industrial printers to produce copies of books, they can just have a copy sent to them over a computer network. You do, in fact, live in this age, and you are pushing for la
Re:Why people want to KILL SOPA? (Score:5, Insightful)
People need to update their business models to cope with new technologies, plain and simple. It is absurd to expect a typical person to know or care about copyright law, and it is insane to introduce a censorship apparatus in America just to protect an old business model. If your business depends on people not using their own computers to do certain things then your business is basically doomed.
I guess I am expected to feel bad for the guy who spent late nights debugging his software only to see people download it without paying. Unfortunately for him, he made a risky business decision (basing his business on people not downloading software when software piracy has been a reality since the beginning of the PC age) which was practically guaranteed to backfire. Sometimes businesses just do not work -- why should we feel more sympathy for some classes of business than for others?
Fair Use and Public Domain (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:About fucking time (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:2nd Amendment (Score:2, Insightful)
(For instance, in Florida, it's legal to kill someone who is putting the lives of your livestock at risk. A cow can run around $5,000 and farmers aren't exactly rich.)
As a Brazilian, I'm disgusted at how some (maybe most) Americans value and money property over life. In addition, I really don't get how a mostly Christian country likes death penalty and wars so much. "Thou shalt not kill." doesn't have exceptions I know of. Jesus never killed anyone and even healed someone he could connsider an enemy at least once.
For the children (Score:4, Insightful)
It is unfortunate how outright irrational people get when the topic of child protection comes up. It is like the intelligent thinking part of their brain just completely shuts down, and they lose the ability to think anything through.
Protecting children is good, we all agree. Blocking adult access to cartoon or digitally-created images of children does nothing to protect them. In fact, it harms them worse on two counts: 1) They are forced to grow up in a liberty-stricken police state, 2) It deprives deviants of other outlets, meaning the *only* stimulation they can get is from actual children.
The evidence at hand is that pedophilia stems from brain malformation, meaning it doesn't heal up over time. Stoic self-denial doesn't make the desires go away. Therefore, making the images go away doesn't make the pedophiles go away. It just leaves YOUR kids as their *only* outlet. You think that makes your kids safer?
Want to protect the children? Allow adults easy access to cartoon images (no real children harmed in producing them) and also dolls like the ones you can get in Japan. Give them a harmless outlet, and continue to punish anyone who harms actual children.
Now watch as people call ME a pedophile for failing to demand permanent taxpayer-funded incarceration for anyone who has an inappropriate desire whether they channel it harmlessly or not.
People are so stupid.