SOPA and Internet Censorship

[Jadecavy]

As much as I really want to go to E3, I would avoid it (saving money in the process) if they don't pull their support.

[Emong]

I don't think the graph is quite an accurate representation of the current situation. In my community, we follow the news and politics. If you think this graph is true, then you live in an area in the United States that is just... well, the American Stereotype.
If you don't know the definition and difference of communism and capitalism, then you haven't been past the 10th grade, maximum, yet. Teenagers do learn what it is in school, if they're able to attend one. And considering the majority of teens do go to school in the United States, this graph does not apply to anyone above the 10th grade in the HS system. To be fair, there are a lot of just, to put it simply, stupid people/teens out there in America that learn what it is, but forget because they don't care, but I still disagree with the graph.

Also, to be fair again, people who are teenagers in 2012, that means they grew up with the internet. Frankly, I don't blame them, and them especially therefore, for being concerned over the internet being threatened. The internet is filled with a lot of valuable information. Teenagers are more concerned with the entertainment it provides, probably, but any opposition to SOPA for any personal reason is good enough for me.

I find the graph funny more than sad. I'm not too concerned with what people my age care about, because we teenagers really affect nothing in the world, frankly. When we all go to college though, if this graph is still true, then I'll be sad.

I'm not really taking the graph too seriously either Lots of teenagers care about politics. But on the other hand the rise of popularity of pirate parties in Europe and elsewhere indicates that the internet is somewhat of a hot topic amongst young people.

I'm not sure though if awareness of the difference between capitalism and communism is a good measure of political awareness because these terms are so biased generally speaking. Maybe it would be a good place to start to know whether Obama is a muslim or not...

And to get into the SOPA topic - I think a lot of the debate is obfuscated by the (in my opinion false opposition) between freedom of speech and censorship/control. It's a little bit awkward to follow debates, in which people, who're really opposed to copyright as such, try to translate the debate into the terms of freedom of speech. I'm not saying legal measures like SOPA wouldn't damage freedom of speech but it's good to separate concerns about freedom of speech from concerns about the privatization of commons, which is essentially what copyright and protective measures like SOPA are. It's as if these people are too afraid to put forward such leftist arguments as free file sharing and thus have to rely of the politically correct topic of freedom of speech to defend their position.

[BasharOfTheAges]

Any legislation that prescribes actions that can be taken without due process DOES chill free-speech because it can and will be used to harass and intimidate. It's very much a free speech issue. In fact, SCOTUS has a history of striking down overly broad laws that chill free speech: see http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news ... f-copa.ars

[Emong]

^ I'll just quote myself: "I'm not saying legal measures like SOPA wouldn't damage freedom of speech but it's good to separate concerns about freedom of speech from concerns about the privatization of commons..." I don't want to get into the topic of free speech right now because it's very complicated. To cut a long story short, I agree with Julian Assange that freedom of speech should be rather understood as freedom of communication, implying that freedom of speech is nothing without social recognition, but I also agree with those critics who understand that it's not only an issue of the government vs. citizens but a persisting paradox that is embedded in our every day lives. The fact that you have the right to say whatever the hell you want can effectively deprive somebody else of the same right by excluding him from the public space, depriving him of his status etc.

I was only saying that often the fight against the privatization of commons (AKA copyright, intellectual property) gets lost in translation because people start talking about it in terms of free speech (which further supports my thesis that freedom of speech so often serves the purpose of a political tool utilized to pursue one's own particular interests. For example in this "progressive" Scandinavian country where I live freedom of speech has been lately utilized to legitimate anti-immigrant sentiment.) I think those who're against SOPA because they feel that people should be allowed to participate in, for example, sites like this, which challenge copyright laws, should not be afraid to argue against copyright as such. The same goes for those who're afraid that their favourite file sharing sites will be taken down.

[BasharOfTheAges]

You'd probably be sad to hear that most of the people (and certainly almost all of the businesses that had blackouts yesterday) that oppose SOPA do so because of the free speech concerns of harassment, and not based on ideas about copyright reform. Methinks you're projecting a bit.

[Emong]

^ Oh I haven't really been following the SOPA debate so closely, which is why I used ambiguous terms like "often" and "a lot of". It's just something I noticed and wanted to comment on.

[AceD]

Internet wins: SOPA and PIPA both shelved

Just hours after Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) announced he was delaying a vote on the PROTECT IP Act, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), the sponsor of the Stop Online Piracy Act, followed suit and announced he would be delaying consideration of the companion legislation.

“I have heard from the critics and I take seriously their concerns regarding proposed legislation to address the problem of online piracy," Smith said. "It is clear that we need to revisit the approach on how best to address the problem of foreign thieves that steal and sell American inventions and products."

"The Committee will continue work with both copyright owners and Internet companies to develop proposals that combat online piracy and protect America’s intellectual property," Smith continued. "We welcome input from all organizations and individuals who have an honest difference of opinion about how best to address this widespread problem." (He may want to check out our thoughts on the matter.)

Even former Senator Chris Dodd, the head of the Motion Picture Association of America, seemed to concede defeat. "With today’s announcement, we hope the dynamics of the conversation can change and become a sincere discussion about how best to protect the millions of American jobs affected by the theft of American intellectual property," he said in a statement. "It is incumbent that they now sincerely work with all of us to achieve a meaningful solution to this critically important goal."

The ideas present in both SOPA and PIPA may return, but both bills in their present form—and with their present names—are probably done for good.

A key figure in the fight against SOPA was Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA). Issa had planned to use his perch as chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to highlight the flaws of SOPA's DNS blocking provisions. He was planning to hold a hearing featuring the testimony of actual technical experts, something that had been mysteriously missing from Smith's hearings on the bill. Wednesday's Internet protests were originally scheduled to coincide with the hearings. But Issa scrapped his hearing after receiving assurances that the DNS provisions would be dropped from SOPA. The broader protest went forward anyway.

"Supporters of the Internet deserve credit for pressing advocates of SOPA and PIPA to back away from an effort to ram through controversial legislation," Issa said in a Friday statement. "Over the last two months, the intense popular effort to stop SOPA and PIPA has defeated an effort that once looked unstoppable."

"Postponing the Senate vote on PIPA removes the imminent threat to the Internet, but it's not over yet," Issa continued. "Copyright infringement remains a serious problem and any solution must be targeted, effective, and consistent with how the Internet works."

[gotegenks]

i feel like an extra in a movie

[TEKnician]

RAWR RAWR! INTERNET BAD! RAWR RAWR! MUST EAT INTERNET! RAWR RAWR!

*shotgun to the head*
And that, kids, is how you play the game.

[TrufflePigStudios]

I think SOPA is ridiculous personally. I've felt for years that copyright laws need to be re-written...but SOPA rewrites them in the opposite way. Copyrights are all about money...but art is so much more than that! Copyrights should be in place to ensure that the proper people receive credit for their art, not to place a wall around it so only a few people can enjoy it.

Don't get me wrong, I am not in favor of people being able to illegally download full movies and albums from the internet. But it seems to me most people who stream or download movies or tv shows do it more out of convenience than anything else. Instead of shutting down the internet they should focus on giving more support to sites like hulu or netflix that offer fast and convenient ways of watching video at a low cost.

People should have the right to use footage in a creative way as long as it isn't for a profit...sites like youtube shouldn't be allowed or forced to take down videos like that! Who is monetarily profiting from youtube? It isn't the users who post up a video of them singing a Gaga song, or amv creators like us. There are ads on every single one of my amv posts on youtube...who is getting the money from that because it certainly isn't me...so why should my videos be punished? That money should go towards the studios or artists or whoever created the content in my videos...and if that is how it works than why is there a problem? (I don't know how youtube works btw, so if I'm mistaken about any of this I apologize).

I feel like corporations are trying to push copyrights to the point of absurdity...what is next after the internet? You won't be able to hum or sing your favorite song because it is in violation of copryright laws? You won't be able to draw a picture of a favorite character? Write a poem or a story about something that inspired you? Artists have been building off each other for centuries and there is no reason why it should stop now! Some of Mozart's earliest pieces were variations on folk tunes or themes by his predecessors (like Bach), the final movement of Berlioz's Symphony Fantastique features a thundering Dies Irae chant in the bass (that he certainly did not create), Michaelangelo studied and copied the works of the classical sculptures in the libraries of the Vatican to be able to create the David- to be able to paint the ceiling on the Sistine Chapel, Edgar Allen Poe borrowed the rhythm and meter of Elizabeth Barrett's poem "Lady Geraldine's Courtship", there are countless movies (The Lion King, 10 Things I Hate About You, and many more I can't think of right now) that borrow the plot lines of Shakespeare's plays, Muse's albums feature piano interludes by Beethoven and introductions by Prokofiev. The artistic world has been copying itself for as long as its existed. So who is to keep young artists (young writers, musicians, and yes, I include amv creators in this category) from using the work of their predecessors to create something? How about we go back in time and impose copyright laws to this extremity...how much of the astounding works of art that we have today would never have been created? Art is moving in a new direction, into pixels and digital media...but that means that the rules and the government need to move with them...not stop them in their tracks.

Even putting the creativity and heart that these young artists put into their work aside...do corporations not realize that they are benefiting from free advertising?!! So often when I see a picture, a story, or an amv that I like that is fan created I get interested in the source. In the case of amvs especially I will look into the song artist and very often buy their album or buy a series used in an amv. If I hadn't seen that lovely piece of copyright violation I would never have known about the source art and gone out and purchased it. I understand a lot of people wouldn't go out and purchase something based on these means...but there are a lot of people who do, and they are cutting off awareness from that sector of the population who is otherwise ignorant to the art that they are marketing.

Even putting art aside...this bill is approached with its focus on the movie industry etc. But once it is in place what is stopping the government from using it for anything they want? The bill is overall too vague to be limited merely to the cinematic and music industry. First they're going to censor art...but what are they going to censor next?

Sorry for the rant, I get really worked up about SOPA o_o

And on a side note that lacks any real educated thought...why on earth are the pharmaceutical companies so behind this act? If I have learned nothing else from anime, it is that pharmaceutical companies are shady >_>