Unlike with the current DMCA laws, which are perfect :thumbsup

Then it would be a good idea to not load content that isn't yours to your site. :2 cents:

i don't get that as well. gay programs have successfully sued and shut down plenty of pirates. have no idea why programs don't use current legal means and instead want the government to do it for them.

well considering 50% of dmca's to google are fake and by competitors don't be naive, the same thing will be done with sopa.

funny how the so-called anti-government "libertarians" want the government to get involved in this case. i think their libertarianism only applies to the right to snort coke and fuck teenagers.

In the EU, newspaper groups have been and are lobbying to reform copyright laws and regulations so that copyright will also apply to titles of newspaper articles. Let's say those big news corporations ever manage to get similar proposals passed in the US, then anyone who writes an article titled "Manwin Acquires Digital Playground" on his own blog will be in trouble.

funny how the so-called anti-government "libertarians" want the stop government to get involved in this case. i think their libertarianism only applies allowing 14yr olds to watch "Harry Potter" for nothing

Rain sales like 1995? No, times have changed. However the feeling of being fucked out of your property by thieves will never change.

.

thank you :2 cents:

Perfectly wrote.... What is wrong with the people against SOPA. I would have thought they have loads of stolen content :(

Does everyone think that SOPA want to make this law so they can just get rid of every website? It's a law against content theft... Paysite & content owners should be looking forward to the SOPA law being passed :2 cents:

Absolutely :thumbsup

Due process is the 14th amendment.

Free Speech is the very first amendment for a reason. It's the most important and crucial part of a free society. Words and information are more powerful than anything else.

Our priorities are very right.

These clowns need to read the law. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.3261:

No it doesn't http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.3261:

Have you ever had an ISP and read the contract? Besides your connection to the Internet. They all can do this and shut you down. Without a court order.

Wrong.

And so the misinformed carry on with their scare tactics. Shame really. Are the law breakers or just pussies or just scared they might have to monitor what they upload?

everyone who is pro sopa is small minded and naive.

Can you provide us with the link please. Just where it says only the headline.

Should a newspaper that has spent money to create a news article have the right to sue people who copy and paste that article on Wikipedia or sue Wikipedia themselves?

Or should the parasites be allowed to make money off others hard work?

This law will make Wikipedia and other sites keep the law, which they currently ignore. Their excuse is "It's too expensive to keep withing the law." Should that apply to everyone?

Because at present if a newspaper plagiarises another persons work, they can get sued. The problem with suing people online is the cost and futility of it.

Anyone who thinks Privacy in the USA is still a concern for US gov is a dimwit.
Seriously, get a grip and wake up to 2012.

there are 2 types of people. Those who create things & profit from them. & those who use others creations & profit from them.

Who should the government be protecting from the other? Who does the government protect by doing nothing.

& if abuse of a law is the reason to not have a law, then why have any laws at all? There are innocents in jail, & on death row. lets not have robbery & murder laws, god forbid someone get falsely accused.

the fear mongering on SOPA is very cheney-like.

It seems to me the people against this are the ones not actually creating anything on their own. Wiki, facebook, google, torrent etc... all companies that thrive by hiding behind current dmca and not being liable for what "users" upload. without the producers, there would be nothing to search, lol cat would not exist, etc...

Sorry but this is simply not possible...

Nominative use will always be legal. You can mention/identify a product by its name even compare it to competing products. This will never change. Ever.

Google Nominative use...

he is talking about something different. i don't think you read before you respond.

Copyright/Trade mark/Patent all have nominative use.

The OP seems to have confused Trade mark with Copyright being that you can not infringe on somebody's right to copy by simply mentioning their Trade mark in a newspaper headline.

I did read before I responded, thanks for the concern.

Dont worry gideon will be along to explain it to you, then Damian will be along to explain how the dns experts told him that SOPA will break the internet.

Then you wont need to worry about it anymore.

You say that.. but have you seen the people in charge of our government?

what is bullshit is your false belief.Well you're failing to consider that the law rarely applies to people who actually commit perjury (because most prosecutors do choose not to pursue prosecuting them for any number of reasons.). And of those they they do choose to prosecute, it typically ends in failure: "A perjury defendant can persuasively argue that they testified honestly, but perhaps from faulty memory, in many cases. Perjury charges in criminal cases are also rare. In 1996, US Sentencing Commission statistics indicated that in federal cases, only 86 of the 42,436 convicted criminal defendants were found guilty of perjury, encouraging perjury or bribing a witness. " source

All they would have to say it they "thought" it looked like something they recognized from somewhere else.

There is no faulty memory or "I thought this is my material". He must, in order to file a complaint in the first place, present the following:

1) proof that he is the owner of material X
2) proof that website Y is using his material X

All the anti-sopa folk seem to be living in a dream bubble where you can supposedly file an anon complaint, the courts accept this anon complaint with no proof at all and on top of all of this perjury is not a crime.

You are missing the point.. this is a slippery slope, give an inch, they take a mile..

And you are going to put your trust into the hands of a single entity.. one who may or may not even fully understand what he/she is doing. You are naive to believe that it is not possible for someone to intentionally forge any type of "proof" they need to sabotage someone else, and do it with fake identities (I mean it's the internet for fucks sake! all you need is basic computer knowledge to fake the shit they would require). The people in charge of this will certainly not take the time to fully verify things as their decision does not affect them directly. And I am sure the appeals process would be slow moving.. maybe long enough to damage the company permanently.

Companies like Google, Wikipedia, and even Adult webmasters who own forums who could not afford the risk of some dumb asses making a judgement call on them, to fully comply they would all have to hire additional help to verify every single post that is made to ensure the post does not link to content that is copyrighted or have links to a site that contains pirated content.

In effect this law could be compared to a massive nightclub that has over 5000 guests a day. 10 of those 5000 guests use illicit drugs. Those drugs are against the law, so the nightclub is shut down because it did not hire 1,000 bouncers to frisk everyone for drugs at the door, because doing so the cost would have put them out of business in the first place.

Seems a fair few people want SOPA once they are allowed & do speak up :thumbsup

This is exactly correct, too many people have got away with murderous misuse of content that has taken time, money & hardwork to provide, it should be protected :2 cents:

right and exactly what percentage of the site has to be used for piracy to meet that definition

it an undefined term, which means it whatever you can convince a judge it is.