SOPA: Your Opinion?

[Inchante]

Are you saying that you're the only one to have understood the extensions of this law? And are you calling the bosses of Wikipedia and Reddit badly informed? If they are boycotting or closing down their sites today, it must be for a very good reason. Paranoia or no paranoia... It still seems a good idea, in the light of everything that goes on in the world today to be vigilant.

Are you sure you teach English? That is not what I said at all. I AGREE with internet companies and organizations. Scroll up to the top of the first page. You will see that I have already contacted my legislators and posted a link so others may do the same. I oppose the legislation for the same reasons as Wikipedia, Google, and Reddit.

But I also oppose people going nuts over the issue and thinking every piece of poorly crafted legislation has a nefarious intention. Sometimes a law is just a law. Being vigilant and paranoid are two different things. Vigilance is keeping your eyes open. Paranoia is losing your sanity, your ability to reason, and jumping at every shadow. Paranoia doesn't help people to be free, it prevents people from being free.

[pellaz]

downloading would continue, methods/tech will adapt.

[Inchante]

American imperialism at its worst. The issue here is not piracy, its that this legislation effectivley empowers the US to act as the police of the internet. They'd be able to issue takedown notices to any website globally with no evidence and no legal recourse.

I also agree with Fenris. This legislation will get misused, just like the anti-terror legislation in the UK has been misused.

Oh, it would not. It would shut down American websites guilty of copyright infringement and prevent American companies from doing business or linking to foreign websites guilty of copyright infringement. In other words, if you wanted to stream a Hollywood movie for free from a Russian webpage, you couldn't Google the webpage . . . you would have to find a non-American search engine to locate the website or copy or bookmark the web address so that you didn't have to use a search engine.

The problem with it is that websites like Youtube would become liable for their users' content. For instance, if I uploaded a Rhianna song to Youtube, Youtube couldn't use its current process that allows them to remove the song after the copyright holder submits a petition, they would be criminally liable for allowing me to post the content in the first place.

That is a very far cry from being "able to issue take down notices to any website".

This is the type of paranoia I am talking about. People hear one word and they go crazy. Doesn't matter if they know what they are talking about, doesn't matter if they are right . . . it is a big conspiracy theory because the world is out to get them.

[LadyJustice]

downloading would continue, methods/tech will adapt.

That's true but that shouldn't ever be a deterrent from making a law.

[princealbertofb]

Actually, I didn't read your first post but was reacting to the way you answered some of the other posters. So, don't condescend, please, Inchante: of course I know English and can teach it... Thankfully I can also read it and that's how I read you... as condescending to me and to other posters here. Had my English not been so good, I might not have detected the lash of your whip-typing.

Thanks for the vote of confidence.
What I'm saying here is, be sure to check out your own words. Am I the only one to see how offensive your first question is? Am I sure I teach English? You do come across as an abusive person sometimes. And I certainly understood that you were calling me stupid. Just saying....

If truth be known, Marshlander left the site because of the way you expressed yourself and tried to bully people into thinking your way. But Marshlander was too polite to say so. He just decided to leave. Maybe you need to publish with a little more nuance or have a mind not to upset people unduly (especially if we agree). Sometimes you make it sound as if only YOU have the right answer and only YOU have understood it all. It's annoying. There are ways to put an idea across while not riling people or making them feel as if you were mocking their intelligence. Maybe you are more intelligent than average, I don't know. On the other hand intelligence would surely also bring an understanding of human interactions?

To get back to the subject at hand, I have not read that law, and I won't say that I have nor that I fully comprehend what it's trying to do. I take it you have.

Despite all that, I can't believe that so many people would be wary of such a law if it were totally criticism-proof, and warranted, and if people weren't wary of other hidden motives. If you want people to vote against a law that is badly put together, then you need to get people worked up against it sufficiently so they'll bother to sign the petition or take action against it. You know that and I know that.

No, people don't want everything for free and they're not trying to steal from the American economy, as you seem to think. I think it's more likely to be the other way round (or we could say the shoe is on the other foot) What people probably want is to be able to have a better life. The U.S. is not that generous, but they sure know how to make a buck off the backs of other countries.

To share the blame, I think all developed countries have. So isn't it a case of the pot calling the kettle black rather than the story of the little boy who cried wolf?

Btw, this might be interesting.... if it's true. Caution advised, as with anything on the Internet.
It's a bit hype-y, to coin the word... so let's not get distracted from the real message. The Internet is a wonderful tool. Let's make sure the big corporations don't spoil it for us. That would be counterproductive.

[pellaz]

That's true but that shouldn't ever be a deterrent from making a law.

the technology exists to make the download process more dark. For the most part it is open accessibility right now and the industry has more control.

[Inchante]

Actually, I didn't read your first post but was reacting to the way you answered some of the other posters. So, don't condescend, please, Inchante: of course I know English and can teach it... Thankfully I can also read it and that's how I read you... as condescending to me and to other posters here. Had my English not been so good, I might not have detected the lash of your whip-typing.

My remark regarding your English abilities was meant to refer directly back to the fact that I did offer criticism of the bill in the post you responded to and that I did agree with those websites and individuals who were against the bill. The fact that I had a condescending tone was a reaction to your condescending tone when you asked: "Are you saying that you're the only one to have understood the extensions of this law? And are you calling the bosses of Wikipedia and Reddit badly informed?" Questions you would know the answer to if you were able to understand the content of my post. If understanding was not the problem, then I have to presume that you ignored it or did not read the content. Why else would you feel the need to be condescending if you already knew I agreed with the the companies?: "It has the POTENTIAL to hamper free speech as an unintended effect while attempting to prohibit theft. Even the websites like Google and Wikipedia state that fact and are in favor of its intention. They just do not like its method."

If truth be known, Marshlander left the site because of the way you expressed yourself and tried to bully people into thinking your way. But Marshlander was too polite to say so.

The only thing I ever said to Marshlander other than complimenting his ability to listen and give advice was the following:

"It has been my experience that people in general are far too likely to see only one dimension of a subject, on either side of a subject. Why, the essence of the video you posted is about peoples tendencies to see a single dimension of a subject. Is that not true?

The one dimensional perspective for some can even become an obsession. They start inserting it into conversations where that topic has really nothing to do with their own perspectives or even the situation at hand. Each of their arguments rest upon it. The thing that those people often don't realize is that, as with every obsession, their in rests dimensions of both love and hate for the subject. They end up perversed by it, like Echo loving Narcissus for his cruelty and hating him for his beauty.

So, I find a reminder from time to time helps people to remember that the world functions, not in categoricals but continuems, not in single dimensions but multiple. This is certainly not a condemnation of that person. We all have those tendencies within us. It is valuable to resist them and to practice at it continually.

Perhaps that is my own obsession, to try and examine things from both sides of the looking glass."

Marshalnder was far more of a bully than I ever have been. He took every opportunity to insult an entire group of people that he knew little of (and he did it on topics that had nothing to do with those people), and if one voiced an argument in opposition, he would cry wolf. The above was a response to his bullying. And it was an effective response simply because it cut to the quick, to what was behind his bullying.

Despite all that, I can't believe that so many people would be wary of such a law if it were totally criticism-proof, and warranted, and if people weren't wary of other hidden motives.

I did not say that it was criticism proof. I offered criticism, I agreed with the criticism of those who have studied the issue, and I acted upon that criticism. But if you read the comments made by the various companies, their legal teams, not even they commit to the idea that SOPA is a DELIBERATE attempt to pass a hidden agenda. I have used the word DELIBERATE or synonyms and phrases that mean the same thing several times. I do not use it superfluously. It has meaning, and that meaning is intended.

If you want people to vote against a law that is badly put together, then you need to get people worked up against it sufficiently so they'll bother to sign the petition or take action against it. You know that and I know that.

I am not one to "get people worked up against" anything. I have seen what people are like when they "get worked up". They lose reason, forget the facts of the situation, and it quickly builds into propaganda, divisiveness, and hatred. Read what I wrote to Marshlander. Getting people so worked up that they can only see one aspect of a situation is what I am entirely against. I think what the world needs more than anything is to retreat from ideologues who get people so worked up that they cannot even speak to each other about a topic and reach a compromise.

Your following quote is an example of this very thing:

No, people don't want everything for free and they're not trying to steal from the American economy, as you seem to think. I think it's more likely to be the other way round (or we could say the shoe is on the other foot) What people probably want is to be able to have a better life. The U.S. is not that generous, but they sure know how to make a buck off the backs of other countries.

This statement screams indoctrination into a specific ideology. You do not even put in facts to support your argument because you believe this so fully that you don't think anyone will bother to question it.

And who can blame you when the media in every country strives to put out the most fantastic story possible? Why would you read an article that states that the U.S. is the single largest donor of foreign aid on the planet when it comes to actual dollars or the seventh largest in the world when adjusted for GNI (above France, Germany, the U.K. and Japan) when you can read an article about how it is number 20 in the world when you adjust for GNI and eliminate ALL private donations? That is what "getting people worked up" is all about--give them some hype so that they lose track of facts. Never mind that the people of the United States actually prefer to do their own charity rather then having the Government do it for them. That is meaningless in the news cycle.

Furthermore, the legislation has been dropped by its sponsors as of today. And I certainly played what role I could in having it droped:

http://mashable.com/2012/01/18/pipa-sopa-abandon-bill/

[Inchante]

PIPA and SOPA Co-Sponsors Abandon Bill:

http://mashable.com/2012/01/18/pipa-sopa-abandon-bill/

[Bowyn Aerrow]

I think people should pay the artists that they love for producing the music they love . . . could the music industry world wide be revamped to fit the times? Yep, but that is not an excuse for not paying for your product. Just saying.

This is the thing, this is not the Artists who are doing this crap, its the Big Corporations who are doing it.

I boycotted the Music Industry on a permanent basis, only because I am one person. If there were a million or more of us activity sending a message by not spending money for a month on the media, then suddenly those big corporations are feeling it where it counts - their wallets.

They would change their tune - knowing that we would and could easily stop spending our money, thus no profit for them. Its just a message, one sent in a currency that they understand (and for the most part only understand).

Micheal Jackson is a good example of how the industry operates.

This man was really messed up in the head. The industry spun it, used it even fed into the insanity which eventually lead to Micheal's death. Everyone is blaming the doctor, not the industry that promoted Micheal's various insanities.

Most of the artists who end up on drugs or dead do so not because they are artists, but because that industry drives them to seek relief.

By not punishing the industry we are allowing the industry to maim and injure people. WE are responsible because WE refuse to send a message.

If we really cared about the artists we would have used our consumer power to send messages a long, long time ago.

We didn't. Instead we put our stamp of approval on the actions of the industry by going out and buying more product.

[Pix]

A little fun sarcasm on actually downloading music for free:

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/10...a-big-deal