SOPA Blackout at Anandtech?

[BoomerD]

First amendment - Violation of free speech rights, by censoring derivative works, and eliminating access written material.

Fourth amendment - Search and seizure of property without a warrant. property can seized by rubber stamp solely on the word of a corporation.

Fifth amendment - Illegal seizure of property without due process, or compensation.

Sixth amendment - Right to a trial.

Seventh amendment - See above...

ROFL!

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

First amendment doesn't guarantee you the right to use copyrighted material carte blanche.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

What property are you speaking about? The picture or music you posted on a website? Music or pictures that actually belong to someone else...but you wanted to use them anyway?

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Same argument. If the property wasn't yours to begin with...why would you be compensated? In what way do you think the 5th amendment would apply?

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Right to a trial? That only applies if someone is being charged criminally.

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Since the "twenty dollars" part has never been modified for inflation or the change in time, this MAY be the only part that's actually applicable...MAYBE.

 

[BoomerD]

the biggest problem i see is that with no real safe harbor trolls can easily make a site infringe on copyright and be in violation of SOPA. say goodbye to internet forums.

Agreed. That's a problematic part of the pending legislation.

 

[bryanW1995]

Vint Cerf, co-designer of TCP/IP, one of the "fathers of the Internet", signing as private citizen

Oh yeah, well, Al Gore is the CREATOR of the whole internets and he is against SOPA!*





* I think

 

[Atomic Playboy]

the biggest problem i see is that with no real safe harbor trolls can easily make a site infringe on copyright and be in violation of SOPA. say goodbye to internet forums.

It doesn't even have to be trolls. My avatar contains an unlicensed representation of a registered trademark. Boom, Anandtech is now in violation of SOPA. Is my avatar actually hurting Playboy or misrepresenting my speech as coming from that company? I think a person would have to be insane to think that. But the law is the law, and under SOPA, Anandtech would be in violation. And that's just one person's avatar. Any quotes in signatures, posts with pictures or other such material? There's tens of thousands of violations of SOPA on these boards. So if it passes, say goodbye to ATOT; all it takes is one complaint from a disgruntled person (say, a banned member perhaps?) and everything here is gone.

But that's a small price to pay to make it marginally harder for people to download movies for about a week (until they figure out that they can still access banned materials via IP addresses and torrents). Progress!

 

[highland145]

As I said in the OTHER SOPA thread,

I was referring to the forum outage. Guess I was too vague.

Someone can lock this one if they like.

 

[Patranus]

What is this "job" you speak of? Isn't this kind of anti pro-small government.. that you people are so fond of?

:facepalm:

Read the Constitution. The protection of intellectually property is one of the only roles explicitly outlined in the Constitution.

 

[Patranus]

It doesn't even have to be trolls. My avatar contains an unlicensed representation of a registered trademark. Boom, Anandtech is now in violation of SOPA. Is my avatar actually hurting Playboy or misrepresenting my speech as coming from that company? I think a person would have to be insane to think that. But the law is the law, and under SOPA, Anandtech would be in violation. And that's just one person's avatar. Any quotes in signatures, posts with pictures or other such material? There's tens of thousands of violations of SOPA on these boards. So if it passes, say goodbye to ATOT; all it takes is one complaint from a disgruntled person (say, a banned member perhaps?) and everything here is gone.

But that's a small price to pay to make it marginally harder for people to download movies for about a week (until they figure out that they can still access banned materials via IP addresses and torrents). Progress!

And why do you feel entitled to use their trademark as you see fit?
Why shouldn't Anandtech have some responsibility for letting you continue to use their trademark without permission?

 

[lxskllr]

First amendment doesn't guarantee you the right to use copyrighted material carte blanche.

They're violating speech rights by shutting down websites. Same as if they shut down a newspaper.

What property are you speaking about? The picture or music you posted on a website? Music or pictures that actually belong to someone else...but you wanted to use them anyway?

The website is OWNED by a person, or company. Seizing it without trial is a clear violation.

Same argument. If the property wasn't yours to begin with...why would you be compensated? In what way do you think the 5th amendment would apply?

see above

Right to a trial? That only applies if someone is being charged criminally.

So which is it, criminal, or civil? Why's the government getting involved in civil matters?

 

[Scooby Doo]

It doesn't even have to be trolls. My avatar contains an unlicensed representation of a registered trademark. Boom, Anandtech is now in violation of SOPA. Is my avatar actually hurting Playboy or misrepresenting my speech as coming from that company? I think a person would have to be insane to think that. But the law is the law, and under SOPA, Anandtech would be in violation. And that's just one person's avatar. Any quotes in signatures, posts with pictures or other such material? There's tens of thousands of violations of SOPA on these boards. So if it passes, say goodbye to ATOT; all it takes is one complaint from a disgruntled person (say, a banned member perhaps?) and everything here is gone.

But that's a small price to pay to make it marginally harder for people to download movies for about a week (until they figure out that they can still access banned materials via IP addresses and torrents). Progress!

Heck you don't even need to be violating anything, you don't need proof. Shoot first and don't ask questions later.

 

[darkxshade]

Did I accidentally just P&N?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

And why do you feel entitled to use their trademark as you see fit?
Why shouldn't Anandtech have some responsibility for letting you continue to use their trademark without permission?

Naturally, if this bill actually became law, I would stop using my avatar, because it would be selfish of me to think that associating myself with this image trumped the law of the land (and there are a number of websites that I visit that I wouldn't want to see shut down because of me). That said, given that so much of our current society is patented, trademarked and copyrighted, it's silly to think that every single time someone uses one of those images/terms, it's tantamount to a legal violation. Trademarked brand names have taken over our lexicon. We don't ask for cola, we ask for coke. We don't need an adhesive bandage, we need a Band-Aid. We use Kleenex, not tissue paper. So, yes, while a broad reading of copyright law could easily see my avatar as a violation, it's a matter of scale. It's ludicrous to say that someone posting a picture of a can of Coca-cola on their Facebook page is what copyright law was intended to fight. Some kid posts a video of his high score on Rockband, and you want to label him a pirate? That doesn't make any sense. SOPA does nothing to distinguish between copyrighted materials or how they're made available; it sees any use of copyrighted material as a potential offense, and that's painting with too broad a brush.

 

[Perknose]

Did I accidentally just P&N?

Yup, Eur o' PN!

 

[Cuda1447]

Bottom line is this. Censorship is bad. REALLY FUCKING BAD.

I don't care the crimes are being committed. Find another way to stop the pirating etc... without going down the road of censorship.

In case I wasn't clear. CENSORSHIP IS REALLY FUCKING BAD.

 

[highland145]

Yup, Eur o' PN!

Boooooo. Keep your day job.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

It's perhaps a bit more accurate...

As I said in the OTHER SOPA thread, I really don't know enough about the proposed laws to make a solid judgment about it either way.
I HATE thieves...and IMO, downloading music, movies illegally, and software IS stealing. If this law was meant to stop that, I'd tend to support it, BUT, a lot of the opinions and articles that I've read say it won't do a damned thing to prevent it nor to punish those thieves who steal such material. <shrug>

I'm leaning toward being against the law because it seems to be too heavy handed towards websites who aren't the ones who are actually violating copyright (and other IP statutes) laws, but simply don't actively police things posted by other users.

As is too often the case, this law looks to be yet another example of corporate greed buying our political system and using it to their own end...at the cost of "we the people."

All you need to know about any laws that have anything to do with technology is, the people voting on those laws have no f'ing clue as to what is in the law, how it works, or what it really means. They just vote based on which group gave them the most money. The RIAA and MPAA are pushing hard for this. That's all you need to know that the law is flawed, biased and is going to be used disproportionately.
These are the people that tried to sue LimeWire for $75 Trillion dollars. They have no basis or grounding in reality. I'm all for artists getting paid for their work, but when you look at the actual numbers, the RIAA and MPAA organizations cook the books so bad to make themselves look like they are loosing money and also use those practices to screw artists out of money, I don't see how anyone can support them.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Naturally, if this bill actually became law, I would stop using my avatar, because it would be selfish of me to think that associating myself with this image trumped the law of the land (and there are a number of websites that I visit that I wouldn't want to see shut down because of me). That said, given that so much of our current society is patented, trademarked and copyrighted, it's silly to think that every single time someone uses one of those images/terms, it's tantamount to a legal violation. Trademarked brand names have taken over our lexicon. We don't ask for cola, we ask for coke. We don't need an adhesive bandage, we need a Band-Aid. We use Kleenex, not tissue paper. So, yes, while a broad reading of copyright law could easily see my avatar as a violation, it's a matter of scale. It's ludicrous to say that someone posting a picture of a can of Coca-cola on their Facebook page is what copyright law was intended to fight. Some kid posts a video of his high score on Rockband, and you want to label him a pirate? That doesn't make any sense. SOPA does nothing to distinguish between copyrighted materials or how they're made available; it sees any use of copyrighted material as a potential offense, and that's painting with too broad a brush.

Don't worry, the law will only be applied to the political opponents of those in power at the time.

 

[T_Yamamoto]

Don't worry, the law will only be applied to the political opponents of those in power at the time.

I was interested in this thread but now there are too many words.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus

 

[Patranus]

It's ludicrous to say that someone posting a picture of a can of Coca-cola on their Facebook page is what copyright law was intended to fight. Some kid posts a video of his high score on Rockband, and you want to label him a pirate? That doesn't make any sense. SOPA does nothing to distinguish between copyrighted materials or how they're made available; it sees any use of copyrighted material as a potential offense, and that's painting with too broad a brush.

I think you need to reread the law.

Anyways, I shouldn't have even replayed regarding your avatar as that is irrelevant to the law.

People here need to read the actual text of the law and understand what it does rather than go off on what they think it does.

 

[Jeff7]

I had to spend my lunch break on other websites today. Oh the horror.
Database error.

Damn hippies and their baseless, uneducated objections!

</list>

Do any of those people have large amounts of money, or lobbyists with sufficient bribery funds?
If not, then their opinions don't matter.

 

[Patranus]

Damn hippies and their baseless, uneducated objections!

Why should I care what someone with a technical background has to say about public policy? This has nothing to do with the base technology.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Why should I care what someone with a technical background has to say about public policy? This has nothing to do with the base technology.

No, but it is alarming when the people who are crafting public policy specifically in reference to a particular technology (in this case, the internet) don't actually understand how that technology works. The people in favor of the bill - the RIAA, the MPAA, and virtually all of the media publications companies in the US - don't have a vested interest in preserving free speech on the internet. The people opposed - Google, Facebook, Wikipedia, Yahoo, Twitter, and countless other websites - clearly do. So a group of politicians who don't understand the internet and a group of media companies who don't care about the structural integrity of the internet are trying to pass a law regulating the internet? That doesn't seem like a good way to craft policy. Why do you think everyone who has an understanding of the base technology of the internet is opposed to this bill, not just in terms of restricting content on the internet, but as being completely ineffective in its approach to combating piracy?

 

[highland145]

I had to spend my lunch break on other websites today. Oh the horror.
Database error.

Fortunately, I had a book to read.

 

[MotionMan]

People here need to read the actual text of the law and understand what it does rather than go off on what they think it does.

All I need to know is that the government is trying to regulate the internet.

With that information, I can just assume it is a bad law.



MotionMan

 

[Patranus]

All I need to know is that the government is trying to regulate the internet.

With that information, I can just assume it is a bad law.



MotionMan

Its no more "regulating the internet" as the DMCA "regulates" the internet.

 

[Rubycon]

Threads like this - http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=290647&page=62

would bring the forums to its knees with this new forum of "regulation".

I say leave the net as it is, just get rid of porn. :biggrin: