WakeWorld

WakeWorld (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/index.php)
-   Non-Wakeboarding Discussion (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=4387)
-   -   SOPA Protests (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/showthread.php?t=791499)

wakeboardern1 01-18-2012 8:05 AM

SOPA Protests
 
With websites like Wikipedia and Reddit going down for the day in protest of the SOPA legislation, I think it is something that the wake industry needs to take very seriously. Wakeworld, Alliance, Wakeboarding Mag, SBC, and countless small grassroots sites are in critical danger from this. Many of these sites rely on content that involves copyright infringement. Specifically user made videos that use copyrighted music without purchasing the rights to it.

Essentially, the publishing of that content on any of these major wakeboard sites could result in our favorite websites being shut down out of the blue.

So I propose that as a forum, we all take a stand on this bill. Sign Google's petition:

https://www.google.com/landing/takeaction/

Write your congressman or woman, and also write your senator, because their PIPA legislation is likely to be just as damaging. This stuff must be stopped or we could lose access to our favorite websites.

EDIT: I just discovered that the protests have successfully gutted the bills... Nonetheless, we need to stay weary of overbroad laws similar to these, as they're what destroy liberty.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...ra-white-house

http://www.sdtimes.com/blog/post/201...ght-thing.aspx

Laker1234 01-18-2012 12:17 PM

I've read that President Obama has threatened to veto the bill, but this link Craigslist has posted does a good job of letting the public know who is on what side. http://www.craigslist.org/about/SOPA

01-18-2012 12:56 PM

Who gave congress the authority to make a law regarding policing the internet?

john211 01-18-2012 1:14 PM

I doubt there's serious question Congress has the power, under the Constitution and, more specifically, the power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce

Laker1234 01-18-2012 1:37 PM

Anytime money becomes involved someone will attempt to get the biggest pile no matter what the cost. From what I understand, intellectual and copyright violations are costing the recording and software manufacturers money, so this is being offered as a solution. I understand that portion of it. However, I don't see how blacklisting a few international sites will prevent that from continuing because violators will always find another way to make money. Maybe sending people who break the law to prison could be offered as an alternative.

01-18-2012 1:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by john211 (Post 1726505)
I doubt there's serious question Congress has the power, under the Constitution and, more specifically, the power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce

The entire internet is commerce?

norcalrider 01-18-2012 2:07 PM

ACLU seems to think this is a Free Speech issue and I agree.

Laker1234 01-18-2012 2:17 PM

In theory, the law will not target all Internet traffic just the copyright violators. However, that could be considered the equivalent to shutting down all discount retail outlets if Wal-Mart were found guilty of selling copyrighted material.

wakeboardern1 01-18-2012 2:28 PM

I think you're all missing the point. The wording of the bill is overbroad and can be used to target any site that potentially has copyright violations even here in America. This means that a wakeboarding site like this could be taken down without notice because of the posting of a user made video that uses copyrighted music. Because Wakeworld did not use due diligence in preventing said material from being posted, they are party to the infringement and therefore the site's financial means will be cut off and the site will shut down within a matter of days.

The messed up part is that there doesn't have to be actual copyright infringement. There only has to be concern that it is happening for the site to be shut down. Hypothetically a website could win a court case against the copyright holders, but that doesn't matter because this bill circumvents the courts.

Youtube, vimeo, facebook, twitter, google, message boards, image websites, political discussion blogs, and music blogs could all be shut down in a heartbeat if this bill is passed, based solely on the accusation of copyright infringement. It's absurd.

01-18-2012 3:17 PM

Rand Paul promises a filibuster...


I like the Paul/Rubio ticket of 2016...

Laker1234 01-18-2012 9:15 PM

I'm curious about Harry Reid's comment that it will create jobs.

diamonddad 01-18-2012 10:05 PM

Our government is SO out of control. Corporations/Unions/SpecialInterest/DeepPockets own their butts.

da_moose 01-18-2012 10:41 PM

Signed it 2 weeks ago

da_moose 01-19-2012 7:12 AM

I just read on spint "bill's been withdrawn"

john211 01-20-2012 8:59 AM

I am for some legislation of this kind. There is a lot of piracy, consumer fraud, tax evasion, to say the least, perpetrated over the Internet.

http://news.yahoo.com/u-shutters-meg...011423326.html

"The entire internet is commerce?"

I am not sure if you are questioning (1) if any part of the Internet is commerce, (2) if Congress is impermissibly stretching its power beyond its lawful reach to regulate the 'entire' Internet, or (3) if the Internet must be 'entirely' commerce for Congress to exercise its power under the Commerce clause.

Regulating the Internet is no more a serious challenge to Congress power than regulating clean air, clean water, global air emissions, maritime law, war on drugs, war on terror. There are domestic aspects and then there are International treaty / other International cooperation aspects.

da_moose 01-21-2012 4:58 PM

Look at all the hoopla this SOPA caused. All the energy , Huge web site allmost shuting down??? who starts this B.S. and how's it get sooooo far ????

irishrider92 01-21-2012 5:27 PM

I know its been withdrawn but even if they revised it, worded it soundly so it could only apply to piracy and managed to pass it, it still wouldn't stop piracy. It might stem it briefly but it will continue regardless, later on. The only practical solution is to offer a better service, such as what Netflix and Steam are doing. Someone can download a film in the same time it takes to make some popcorn, but if the provided quality can be better for the $10 or so per month that it costs to go through a legitimate source, then that's a much more appealing option to a consumer.

cadunkle 01-21-2012 6:07 PM

Brian, good points. The MP/RI AA and others don't get it. I've been burned several times by DRM. I will not purchase anything that contains DRM. I don't need movies or music or games to live my life. I haven't been to a movie theater or watched a DVD in several years, aside from once a year at the drive-in where I pay $6 to see two or sometimes three films. I haven't purchased music in maybe a decade. I haven't bough a video game in years. Guess what, I don't pirate either. I just flat out don't need it... Not at the price they demand and not with the DRM the impose. Would you believe that I don't own a TV? Last one broke and I realized I just don't need one! It's easy to do without those luxuries when you realize how much it costs you.

Piracy is not a question of losing money. Those who pirate either won't purchase because it's inconvenient to do so in the ways you offer, they don't want your DRM junk that prevents them from using the media they paid for as they please, or they just don't have any money to spend on it anyway. Point being, stopping piracy will not increase sales or profits.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 4:35 AM.