SOPA Protest Blackouts Begin, Add Your Voice

Wikipedia is dark.

Mozilla will be dark during the day.


Google has black boxes on its website. When you click on one, here's where you go.

Here's a list of those opposing SOPA.

EFF has this handy list of SOPA and PIPA links.

It also reminds people:

On Twitter, please use hashtags: #SOPA, #PIPA, #Blacklist, #SOPABlackout, #J18

EFF says:

As drafted, the legislation would grant the government and private parties unprecedented power to interfere with the Internet's underlying infrastructure. The government would be able to force ISPs and search engines to block users' attempts to reach certain websites' URLs. In response, third parties will woo average users to alternative servers that offer access to the entire Internet (not just the newly censored U.S. version), which will create new computer security vulnerabilities as the Internet grows increasingly balkanized.

It gets worse: the blacklist bills' provisions would give corporations and other private parties new powers to censor foreign websites with court orders that would cut off payment processors and advertisers. Broad immunity provisions (combined with a threat of litigation) would encourage service providers to overblock innocent users or even block websites voluntarily. This gives content companies every incentive to create unofficial blacklists of websites, which service providers would be under pressure to block without regard to the First Amendment.

Service providers would be forced to monitor and police their users' activities as well, threatening the DMCA safe harbors that have been vital to online innovation over the last decade. SOPA gives the government new powers to go after sites that provide information about tools that might be used to bypass the blacklists — even though these are often the same tools used by democratic activists around the world to bypass Internet censorship mechanisms implemented by authoritarian governments like Iran and China.

Colorado Senator Mark Udall is opposing the bill.
Sen. Mark Udall, also a Colorado Democrat, does not support the measure. He said Tuesday that it could be "a bill looking for a problem."

"Three things that concern me is that it would kill free speech, it would kill innovation and undermine Internet security efforts," he said. "The government could censor Internet search results, and it encourages lawsuits by private parties."

One more time: Tell Congress now, no SOPA, No PIPA. Congress plans a vote in February, the bills are not dead yet.

< The Long Game | SOPA Internet Blackout: Congress is Listening >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    It (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by lentinel on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 01:31:49 AM EST
    is disheartening to me to see a petition of this kind prefaced with a "PLEASE".

    I would prefer that there be some kind of expression of "OR ELSE!"

    If these guys do not perceive a threat, they do not react.

    Obama's reaction to this is, imo, typically tepid:

    While we believe that online piracy by foreign websites is a serious problem that requires a serious legislative response, we will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet.

    He is encouraging a "serious legislative response" to "online piracy". And what might that entail, pray tell?

    Saying he "won't support" this current bill is far from saying that he will veto it.

    I wish we had a leader in the WH.

    One thing it would certainly entail... (none / 0) (#6)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 08:20:42 AM EST
    is a prison term...more federal crime(s) onto the list that is already so long it literally cannot be counted.

    Spare us your poisons posing as remedies.  Don't spoil cyber-world with authoritarianism like you've spoiled the real world.


    I Think You Misread the Comment (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 09:07:43 AM EST
    I don't think there was any poison.

    What really ticks me off about this is people who make zillions do not need legislation is any form.  They are doing fine even with piracy.

    The fact that Obama agfrees that there is a problem is why he will never get my vote.  Where the legislation to protect us, the poor folks, from the the zillionaires ?

    To me any idiot can see who needs protecting.

    And I agree with lentinel, and I will add Obama is against it in sound bit only.  If he was really against it, he could shut it down and tell Congress to start working on helping people who actually need it.

    Right now, the kazillionaires can figure out how to protect their profits, maybe when the rest of us aren't suffering we can revisit the issue.

    And for the record, Google is to pirated sites as USP is to illegal prescriptions.  They deliver, it's not their job to ensure every package/website meets Corporate America's litmus test.


    I was talking to Washington... (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 09:19:30 AM EST
    not lentinel...I wasn't very clear.  I agree with lentinel...and you;)

    I meant Congress and the Pres. should spare us more poisonous legislation that does more harm than good.


    It Blows My Mind... (none / 0) (#31)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 09:54:35 AM EST
    ...that in these times, when corporate welfare is a hotplate issue, Congress decided to toss us a big FU and push legislation clearly written by special interests.

    Is there any other... (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 10:09:33 AM EST
    kind of legislation in this day and age? ;)

    You're right...particularly odd in an election year when income disparity and vulture capitalism and crony corporate welfare are the hot topics.


    Should be UPS (none / 0) (#22)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 09:21:29 AM EST
    Undertsood (none / 0) (#84)
    by lentinel on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 04:39:43 PM EST
    Signing Statement (none / 0) (#43)
    by gaf on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 10:09:48 AM EST
    I think he will pass it with a signing statement which says that it will not be used for censoring. We need to trust him.

    Just to (none / 0) (#85)
    by lentinel on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 04:40:58 PM EST
    be clear... you're kidding... yes?

    It is so clear they want to enforce based on (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by ruffian on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 06:14:58 AM EST
    convenience, and mere suspicion rather than proof, just like every other area of our lives these days. If they know that Web Site A is the base provider of pirated material, I am fine with going after them.  But they can't prove it, or else it is difficult to stop, so instead they want to scare Web Site B away from linking to Web Site A based on suspicion.

    And for what? would the people viewing pirated movies pay money for them otherwise? Not at 20 bucks a pop.

    Right idea, wrong law (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by vicndabx on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 12:17:20 PM EST
    blocking outbound access to piracy sites via the DNS servers in the US alone will not stop piracy.  

    There needs to be a coordinated effort amongst law enforcement agencies worldwide to curtail it.

    If Congress (none / 0) (#2)
    by Edger on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 05:10:22 AM EST
    really has the hots for regulating something, I'd much prefer to see EFF's statement replaced and reworded with something like this...

    As drafted, the legislation would grant the government and the SEC unprecedented power to interfere with the Wall Street backscratchers network underlying infrastructure.

    Control fraud investigators of the William K. Black strain like would be empowered to monitor and police investment bank activities as well as Federal Reserve cronyism and corruption, threatening the safe harbors that have been vital to enabling unprecedented con jobs being perpetrated on the public over the last decade. SOTA (Suck On This A$$holes) gives the government new powers to go after white collar criminals that have corrupted and bought the Congressional Reps, Senators, and Presidents that have been used to help them to bypass all moral and legal restraints to fleecing average Americans...

    Only trouble with that is, Obama's response probably would probably be something like...

    While we believe that the current economic situation is a serious problem that requires a serious legislative response, we will not support legislation that reduces freedom from regulation, increases investment capital accountability, or undermines the dynamic, innovative bankers networks who are our major contituents, and in order to counter the enormous rise in anti-1% progandanda on blogs over the past year we will only make weak ineffectual noises about not supporting SOPA. I'm sure you all understand. Grin.

    What? Oh, sorry, I must have dozed for a minute. I had a very strange dream...

    If this (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by lentinel on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 05:40:22 AM EST
    p.o.s. legislation were to pass, I can just see ol' Obama, signing it while looking grim and expressing his "reservations"...

    Yes, and (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Edger on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 05:49:57 AM EST
    as soon as it passes, there'll be commenters here, there and everywhere reminding everyone how powerless and hard done by ol' Obama is, and how everyone must feel his pain, bite the bullet and support him, or else, you know, a republican president will look grim and express his "reservations" about it too.

    of course the possibility (none / 0) (#16)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 09:09:36 AM EST
    of the existence of a legitimate opinion other than yours is discounted out of hand.

    Well, (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Edger on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 10:00:19 AM EST
    that's your opinion, and you're welcome to it!

    supported in black in white? (none / 0) (#35)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 10:04:58 AM EST
    opps posted too soon (none / 0) (#38)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 10:06:25 AM EST
    I am not at all sure I want this law passed but it is not a black and white issue and those who try to portray it that are misguided

    Why don't (none / 0) (#83)
    by lentinel on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 04:35:20 PM EST
    you state your opinion, instead of assuming that it will be dismissed?

    No kidding (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 08:28:38 AM EST
    What about all this illegal high frequency trading?

    I'm sure (none / 0) (#10)
    by Edger on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 08:48:40 AM EST
    Obama has 'reservations' about that. Too.

    trying to find out more about this (none / 0) (#8)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 08:41:24 AM EST
    I found this article on a site called TECHdotMN.  it seems balanced and informative.

    Both Minnesota Senators have been active around technology and innovation related issues as of late, whether collectively or independently.
    Franken has a history of siding with the concept of `Net Neutrality'. In February, he was elected to Chairmain of the Senate Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law and has since proactively pursued an active consumer protection agenda. He now finds himself embattled between big business and the same gray areas of Internet privacy which he purports to defend.

    after reading it I tend to lean against passage but the fact is support from people like Franken ( chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law - and tend to personally trust) and Senator Klobuchar  and opposition from people like Darrell Issa, Eric Cantor and Michelle Bachman gives me pause

    DailyKos rocks! (none / 0) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 08:46:35 AM EST
    You have to sign the petition or your Orange is redacted today.  I love it.  Whoever came up with that concept for today rules!

    I wish there (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 08:50:40 AM EST
    was more public debate and discussion of this.  seems odd there hasnt been any.

    I think it is hard for many people (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 08:57:04 AM EST
    to fully comprehend how their lives would be impacted.  That's what I love about what DailyKos did, it is a momentary experience of the impact.

    It's too bad (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Edger on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 09:03:39 AM EST
    dkos doesn't lift the invisible redactions of opinion and allowable topics they engage in on a regular basis over there...

    Edging :) (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 09:30:54 AM EST
    I actually dont think it is (none / 0) (#14)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 09:06:43 AM EST
    everything I have read suggests that the impact on legal sites and even sites in this country would be extremely minimal.  I understand the impulse to keep access to everything but under the law the only sites that would black out are sites like pirate bay which exists only to distribute copy protected information.  and even those not overnight but as their revenue streams dry up

    I sure this heresy will invite hysterical flaming.  dont bother I am not in the mood to argue about it but would urge people to actually find out what the law does, who is supporting it and who is opposing it.  you might be surprised on all counts.


    No doubt that "extremely mininal" (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by sj on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 09:35:34 AM EST
    impact is why the Big Boys are speaking out.  You know, Google, and Wikipedia, and Twitter.  I read your comment where you said that Franken's support gives you pause.  

    It gives me pause, too.  But on Franken, not on the odiousness of the legislation.


    I suggest (none / 0) (#27)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 09:43:46 AM EST
    you look at the Hayes interview I posted downthread.

    I like the Hayes show (none / 0) (#40)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 10:07:30 AM EST
    and I did see some of this show.  It seems to me that Hayes likes to bring up aspects of issues that are being overlooked but I can't say his show shoots for the big picture....more of a missed aspects of the picture type show.

    it actually seems to me (none / 0) (#46)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 10:18:38 AM EST
    there has been too much big picture and not enough attention to the actual facts that make it up.  which that show did well.  and it posted in full downthread.

    but yeah (none / 0) (#28)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 09:45:42 AM EST
    Franken,  real corporate tool that guy.

    Doesn't Matter (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 09:52:15 AM EST
    Corporate America should not be regulating the internet even more, which is precisely what will happen.  They have already gamed the search engines to 'special' treatment.

    And speaking for me, totally eliminating sites from searchability is pretty much limiting those sites to word of mouth.  Many of the sites they will blacklist have forums I read regularly.  I like doing what I want with the products/materials I own.  And just because some clown at Apple says I can't hack my iPhone, doesn't mean I can't or that it's actually illegal.

    The problem lies in what the music/movie/game industry feels is illegal, isn't.  Downloading copyrighted materials from overseas sites is not illegal unless they can prove that I knew the company did not buy it/pay royalties.  Which is virtually impossible and why they want more control.

    If they want to start playing fair, then fine, but I probably have 50 albums in which I have purchased in vinyl, tape, CD, and MP3.  If I want to download music I already own because it's cheaper and more efficient then ripping it, they have no standing to tell me I can't.  I own it.

    And of course, Congress should be spending their days working for people that can't afford to buy legislation.  Let the fat cats figure out how to keep their profits flowing until after we get real problems that effect most of the country solved, until then they can suck it.


    I agree with (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by CST on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 10:05:27 AM EST
    this guy, for the most part.

    "In general, we think there is a fundamental misconception about piracy," Newell told The Cambridge Student, via VG247. "Piracy is almost always a service problem and not a pricing problem.

    "For example, if a pirate offers a product anywhere in the world, 24x7, purchasable from the convenience of your personal computer, and the legal provider says the product is region-locked, will come to your country 3 months after the US release, and can only be purchased at a brick and mortar store, then the pirate's service is more valuable. Most DRM solutions diminish the value of the product by either directly restricting a customers use or by creating uncertainty.

    "Our goal is to create greater service value than pirates, and this has been successful enough for us that piracy is basically a non-issue for our company."

    I will admit that I use to pirate mp3s back in the day on napster, etc...  But you know what?  That's because it was the only way to get an mp3.  Or get a song without buying an entire album.  I never pirate anymore because it's not worth it.  You can buy one song for a buck, and you know it's not gonna have a virus or any other problems, so it's worth it.  But how long did it take for the music industry to wake up and figure out that their model wasn't working?  Instead they spent years fighting it and trying to shut it down, rather than embrace it and have it make money for them.


    I hate to keep saying this (none / 0) (#42)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 10:09:36 AM EST
    but this issue is discussed in some depth in the Hayes interview and the argument is made, by Hayes not the NBC guy, that piracy in some way is hindering the development of things like HULU which is intended to do exactly what you suggest.

    because they can't get the rights (none / 0) (#45)
    by CST on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 10:16:29 AM EST
    to shows for fear of piracy?

    I'll try to check out the video later but I am like scott, only really on here during times where video isn't gonna fly.


    I really encourage you to do so (none / 0) (#47)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 10:23:48 AM EST
    it is a very balanced and fair discussion with everyone getting their shot.

    which as far as I can tell exists no where else on the web.  and again, I find that extremely strange.

    when was the last issue this controversial that seemed to have a total information blackout.


    total information blackout (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by CST on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 10:28:36 AM EST
    is right, and that's a big reason I don't trust it.

    Who do you think is behind that blackout?  And why?

    I know what I think the answer to that question is.


    no idea (none / 0) (#51)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 10:45:36 AM EST
    but it is extremely odd.  the obvious assumption would be they do not want to facilitate any public discussion.  but the fact that it seems to be happening on both the for and against side, that would be the net and places like NBC, is not helpful is deciding exactly who doesnt want it discussed.

    to be fair there has been a smidge of what appears to be balanced coverage on cable news.  with Hayes being the flagship.  I challenge you to find a balanced discussion on the net.  I googled for about an hour to find that article I posted.  all you find are screeds.


    cmon now (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by CST on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 10:49:24 AM EST
    the net doesn't have the power to "facilitate" any kind of discussion, but you can't say they aren't talking about it or that there has been a blackout online.

    I mean take a place like reddit, "all you find are screeds" because the people who agree with this aren't posting or are getting downvoted.  But it's not like there is someone in control on the web who can "facilitate" that kind of discussion.  That's not what the internet does.

    So you found one "balanced coverage" on a Saturday show - but for the most part the major news media companies (cable, newspapers, etc...) have been completely silent about it.


    I saw a link to a Q & A with Wyden, (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 11:08:03 AM EST
    which I followed, read, and then posted both link and excert, below, so clearly, there are discussions ongoing, there is information out there, and what I read didn't come close to being a "screed."

    Here's the link again: Q & A with Ron Wyden.

    David Dayen weighs in:

    The bill would put the burden of proof on the Web site to police its content for copyright or risk being taken down. It would allow for the cutoff of payments and the shutdown of Web sites without a court hearing or a trial. It would give private companies the ability to sue to take down sites they feel violate their copyright. Before last weekend, it would have allowed the Justice Department to require ISPs to block certain domain names, damaging the secure standard of the Domain Name System. The House version of this bill eliminated that provision, but it remains in the Senate version, with Chairman Patrick Leahy - who is very tied in with the entertainment industry - seeking only to "study" the provision before implementation.

    Despite a string of victories on the bills over the past several weeks, the grassroots coalition and Internet giants pushing against this bill have not rested. They turned the legislation from inevitable to a situation where House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said he would not bring the bill to the floor without "consensus." But Lamar Smith, the Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, said he would complete the markup on SOPA in February. And the Senate will still hold a vote on the bill next week. So there's every reason to garner more attention for this awful piece of legislation, which would for the first time in America censor the Internet in ways that we've seen in repressive regimes during the Arab uprising.

    it does certainly have the power (none / 0) (#54)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 11:07:03 AM EST
    to print an article (like the one I linked to that is fair IMO).  but they are extremely hard to find.  what you do find is pretty much what you said

    because the people who agree with this aren't posting or are getting downvoted.

    and which pretty much never use any actual facts in that process.  
    btw the "fair" article I mentioned convinced me that I probably do not want this bill to pass in its current form.  but call me old fashioned I like to see both sides discussed.

    Leahy put out this statement today with which I have some sympathy:

    Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the chief author of the Senate bill, said the protest is based on a misunderstanding of the legislation.

    "The PROTECT IP Act will not affect Wikipedia, will not affect reddit, and will not affect any website that has any legitimate use," he said.

    "Perhaps if these companies would participate constructively, they could point to what in the actual legislation they contend threatens their websites, and then we could dispel their misunderstandings. That is what debate on legislation is intended to do, to fine-tune the bill to confront the problem of stealing while protecting against unintended consequences."

    the supporters, and lets face it Leahy and Franken  and Klobuchar are not exactly fire breathing right wingers, echo that statement.  


    and ps (none / 0) (#57)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 11:12:57 AM EST
    on the other side we have Issa, Cantor, Bachman and Ryans new best friend Wyden.

    one other point (none / 0) (#59)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 11:26:28 AM EST
    the point Leahy made

    Perhaps if these companies would participate constructively

    was not made in passing.  many if not most of the vocal opponents of this bill are going to oppose any bill that attempts to protect copyrights.  and that is why they are opposing this one.  
    but a law is going to pass protecting copyrights.  
    I guarantee you it is.  
    so they can either accept the senators invitation to participate constructively or take what they get.


    Copyrights are already protected (none / 0) (#61)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 11:35:51 AM EST
    on the internet.  This is about protecting due process.

    Im sorry this is just misinformed (none / 0) (#63)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 11:43:30 AM EST
    there are sites, like the often sited PirateBay,  where they mean nothing.  copyrights are protected in the US and ALL of the sites this law is directed at are outside the US.  if the opponents what to talk about lessening the possible unintended consequences to other sites thats great.  all for it. but the fact is this law is intended to go after sites outside the US like PriateBay.  and btw it would not close them down but only close off their revenue stream.

    PirateBay will give you a nasty disease (none / 0) (#70)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 12:18:49 PM EST
    Everyone knows this :)

    not if you use protection (none / 0) (#72)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 12:35:08 PM EST
    but I hope you take my point.  this is only one of many large misconceptions people are walking about today.
    that copyrights are already protected.

    the misinformation on this issue is pretty staggering.


    Did you see msblucow's diary at Orange? (none / 0) (#73)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 12:36:03 PM EST
    no (none / 0) (#74)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 12:45:11 PM EST
    dont spend much time at orange.  isnt it blacked out?
    I know there are "differences in opinion" on this.  and as I said, there are many who will oppose any protection of copyrights.  but IMO all you have to do is click over to PirateBay and the point is made.
    and it is undeniable

    She works directly for Hollywood Studios (none / 0) (#75)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 12:50:30 PM EST
    interesting that (none / 0) (#32)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 09:55:28 AM EST
    your position is held neither by the supporters of opponents of SOPA.  all of whom agree that copyright laws have to be enforced billions in jobs and revenue are being lost by not enforcing and the only disagreement is how to go about it.

    your lost jobs claim... (none / 0) (#62)
    by Dadler on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 11:36:09 AM EST
    ...seemed factually refuted in the interview you linked to.  Technology is reductive when it comes to jobs in the big picture anyway.  Doesn't necessarily HAVE to be, but right now, as we have for decades, we allow it to be.

    The NBC suit was just that, and he seemed late to the table in understanding that his suit-status didn't mean sh*t at a talking heads TV roundtable.  And trust me, he's not thinking about ANYone's job but his own.  Film studios and TV networks, more than anyone else, act like pirates every day with the real creative talents behind their profits.  Studios don't even have to buy stuff to own it.  Hell, I optioned a script to Universal, but technically they OWN all the changes I made in the two rewrites I did before it died in pre-production.  So if I ever made it, and wanted to use segments that I wrote while it was optioned at Universal, someone has to pay off Universal for stuff they gained ownership of when they were just RENTING the f'ing script.


    I have to agree with Dadler (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 12:20:28 PM EST
    None of this is destroying any of the industries who want it, and going this route will stiffle job creation on many levels...not promote it.

    I have total sympathy and agree (none / 0) (#64)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 11:46:23 AM EST
    and while it is probably true he was primarily talking about his own job it does trickle down.  many artists support if not this law something like it.

    Really... (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 12:08:42 PM EST
    and while it is probably true he was primarily talking about his own job it does trickle down.  many artists support if not this law something like it.

    ya, because if there is one thing RIAA is know for, it's treating artists fairly.

    Right now the trend is dissing the music industry and releasing music online for donations.  Very few artists actually make any discernible money off of actual sales.

    I have no idea how this applies to software and game designers.  But I feel confident in saying it won't trickle to the actual worker bees.


    you may be right (none / 0) (#68)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 12:14:05 PM EST
    the truth is neither of us actually know.  but I do know may artists are concerned about copyright laws.

    Please Captain (none / 0) (#65)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 11:49:14 AM EST
    The jobs ?  That is at the end of every single piece of republican legislation to hit the floor in the last decade.  And it's always from the industry with the caveat of 'possible'.  And here we sit over unemployed, what gives.

    Billions in jobs, that would be a number from a neutral 3rd party, or the industry ?  Is that worldwide or the US ?  It matters.

    Give me some statistics, not industry sound bites.


    I dont actually think I was talking about jobs (none / 0) (#66)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 11:52:02 AM EST
    someone else brought it up because it is discussed in the video you havent seen.   so watch it and then we can discuss it.
    but its a fact that many artists are concerned about copyright laws.  ask the founder of Napster.

    btw (none / 0) (#17)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 09:12:37 AM EST
    who is supporting it and who is opposing it

    I am not referring to NBC and AOL those are entirely predictable.  I mean lawmakers.


    Don't forget... (none / 0) (#18)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 09:16:17 AM EST
    the inevitable unintended consequences that come with every new law...negative consequences.

    I don't doubt online piracy is a problem, I don't trust Congress to do anything but make it worse.


    It removes due process though (none / 0) (#21)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 09:21:03 AM EST
    from the equation.  If the Bush administration taught me anything, it was how evil people momentarily in charge will stomp on everyone's faces in every way via avoiding due process.  President Obama's signing statement about detaining Americans was disgusting too, and the fact that Obama won't do it means nothing to me.  He harmed my future and my children's futures.

    They have other ways of dealing with the piracy anyhow.  Just ask my computer.  I tried to steal Damages season 3 before it was available and it broke my puter :)  It's providing people with jobs, all this hunting and giving stolen property the flu :)


    Pirating (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 02:54:45 PM EST
    Did it seem a little odd that is was so easy at PB, almost too easy...  the real kicker is not only have the corporate stooges bought into it, Congress is about to.  No real piracy is out in the open, but there has to be a way to.... because the system is built on sharing which means the more the merrier.

    Which brings me to my point, these idiots are so deluded they think they're going to stop internet piracy in the US.  
    They think the real pirating is at static sites like Pirate Bay.  

    It's illegal, and like anything illegal there is an entire underground they will never stop.  A bunch of old wild crusty dudes (pols & execs) think they are going to outwit hackers on the internet, ya OK.  Cannot be done, and unlike drugs, many hackers do it just to prove it can be done and take great pride in sticking it to the man.

    As long as computers and the internet exist, so will piracy.


    It's Odd That Google... (none / 0) (#19)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 09:19:24 AM EST
    ...isn't going dark.  I can't think of a company more effected.  If they posted some sort of link with the facts, it would greatly increase awareness.  And not just on their main page, but whenever a search is made.

    But like the money behind this bill, they shutter at losing one dollar.  If this goes through and it's not looking like it will not, Google will probably spend the next decade in court.  First, fighting the legality of it, then fighting the civil suits from the clowns behind it.

    I'm just surprised they are being more proactive in fighting it.  It's not like they have any sort of neutrality policy.

    Given Google's recent behaviors, I'm don't find (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Farmboy on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 10:00:09 AM EST
    it odd. They've been acting like the 800lb. gorilla that they are, what with their (alleged) actions in Kenya and the recent vandalism against OpenStreetMap.

    Google has hung a black box over their logo, but if they were on board with the protests going dark for even an hour would be a huge "don't be evil" statement.


    I you want information (none / 0) (#24)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 09:34:53 AM EST
    this excellent discussion on Chris Hayes show last weekend is a good place to start.  I dont think it got a single response comment the other day when I posted it which makes me wonder if anyone even watched it.  and why on earth they would not.

    it is the two saturday segments.


    For the Record (none / 0) (#37)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 10:05:28 AM EST
    For me at least, I rarely logon to Talk Left at home, so if it's not posted during CST business hours I miss it.  And I never watch videos here.  

    The few times I have came here on the weekends, totally different group, so I assume a lot of us office TLers.

    Might be why no response...


    I looked for a transcript (none / 0) (#48)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 10:24:41 AM EST
    doesnt seem to exist.  sorry.  it worth the time if you care about this.

    I agree (none / 0) (#26)
    by sj on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 09:37:39 AM EST
    If Google went dark that would make a HUGE statement.  It would also seriously mess up my work today.  

    I just wonder if they are worried that Bing would pick up more of their users.  Have you noticed how often Bing is shown on network television programs?


    maybe they (none / 0) (#30)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 09:52:29 AM EST
    are not as worried about as you

    Maybe (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 10:06:31 AM EST
    But not an article out there that hasn't specifically singled out Google as being effected.

    wonder why (none / 0) (#44)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 10:10:40 AM EST
    they are not black?

    Only Guessing (none / 0) (#52)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 10:46:52 AM EST
    But unlike Wiki, if Google is black, people will use another search engine.  Think of the money lost of even 1% find a search engine they like better.  They can't risk people using an alternative.

    Speaking of, I am so fed up with Google, anyone using something better, something that doesn't submerse you in commercial non-sense ?  I have tried some of the oldies like Yahoo and Altasvista, but pretty much the same cr@p.  And I can't stand Bing.


    Pretty much what I said above (none / 0) (#77)
    by sj on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 12:54:10 PM EST
    if Google is black, people will use another search engine.  Think of the money lost of even 1% find a search engine they like better.
    I haven't found a better alternative, but I'm with you.  Don't like Bing, I hate all the junk on Yahoo.  I just tried AltaVista for the first time in forever.  I really didn't get many different results on my search than I did on Google.

    I read a Q & A with Ron Wyden (none / 0) (#50)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 10:34:20 AM EST
    that explains why these bills are so bad; here's an excerpt:

    EK: What makes PIPA and SOPA cluster bombs? If you agree there is a problem, why aren't these acceptable solutions?

    RW: PIPA and SOPA, at their heart, are censorship bills and blacklisting bills, and they undermine much of the architecture of the internet. I recognize that you don't have discussions about the domain name system at every coffee shop in America. But it's essentially the directory to the net. If you didn't have a universal naming system -- for my Senate site, wyden.senate.gov -- it would just be gibberish. What the bills do is say, when you get a court order, you can't use the domain-name system to resolve to the IP address.

    EK; When you say "resolve to the IP address," exactly what that means. Let's say I run EzraTube.com. And someone has uploaded copyrighted content to my site. What happens next?

    RW: When you type EzraTube.com into your browser, your browser is asking Comcast to ask other servers where that goes. These servers basically act as phonebooks. What the so-called "DNS remedy" in the bill does is enable the attorney general to get a court order that tells Comcast, `when people want to find EzraTube.com, don't send them there. Send them to a Department of Justice site instead.' People who want to work around this would be able to. There are already third-party tools that use foreign servers or other domain-name servers outside of Comcast's network. But that's a problem because, for the last 15 years, we've spent all this time building the DNS system into a secure standard. Because of this effort, all of the important work on the net is built around the DNS system. In the national security space, everything we're trying to do on cybersecurity is built around DNS system.

    EK: And so their remedy to piracy is to make it a hassle for me to go to sites that include potentially pirated content, but the side effect is that the remedy corrupts the primacy and impartiality of the DNS system?

    The rest of the Q & A explains and addresses the fact that under these bills, web sites would be responsible for policing content, and as Wyden explains, this isn't just a matter of turning Web sites into Web cops, but it's also damaging to innovation.

    "Private right of action" is another issue - as Wyden says:

    It creates an opportunity for competitor to snarl rivals in the legal process. In the case of Viacom and YouTube, you would allow a media company to file a lawsuit against a competitor. So in addition to the government saying there has been an infringement of copyright, now private corporations get that power. It's one thing to have a small group of government lawyers policing the law. Now it allows private corporations with big legal teams to use those lawsuits as an offensive weapon against competitors.

    Here's another link to more explanation.

    Can't speak for anyone else, but I trust Ron Wyden's take on this.

    it might be worth mentioning here (none / 0) (#56)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 11:09:53 AM EST
    that Wyden is the guy who just teamed up with Paul Ryan.

    Not on this he didn't, and (none / 0) (#58)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 11:23:47 AM EST
    this is, I believe, the subject at hand, is it not?  I mean, we are talking SOPA/PIPA and not Medicare, right?

    If you want to talk entitlements, I can be as anti-Wyden for Wyden's position and alliance with Ryan as the next person, but on SOPA/PIPA, Wyden is right - in my opinion - and Paul Ryan, well, I have no idea where he stands on this issue.

    Did you even follow the link, and/or read the excerpts?  Do you not find Wyden's comments enlightening enough to discuss, or are you trying to say that being wrong on Medicare makes him wrong on this, too?  Hard to tell because you didn't actually comment on anything Wyden said.

    For someone who's been having an anxiety attack because no one's discussing this issue, it seems odd that you would avoid engaging on the merits in favor of yet another meaningless distraction.


    far be it from me to point out (none / 0) (#60)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 11:29:28 AM EST
    your guy is the guy who Krugman recently called a useful idiot.

    granted the article it about medicare but and idiot is and idiot I would say.


    You, on the other hand, (5.00 / 0) (#78)
    by sj on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 01:02:07 PM EST
    are urging everyone to watch Chris Hayes.  Chris Hayes may have some views that I like but I'm not prepared to accept, unadulterated, his technical expertise.  Knowing some things doesn't make him qualified to know all things.

    I don't look at people as one-dimensional.  Not even you.


    Wyden is my senator. he can be a real (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by caseyOR on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 02:30:16 PM EST
    weasel, like with those Ryan-Medicare thing. Still, nobody in the Senate is better than Wyden when it comes to opposing the National Security State.

    He has been working long and hard to repeal the worst of the Patriot Act, he has been a staunch defender of net neutrality, and he consistently opposes any and all efforts to strangle the free flow of the internet.

    Castigate away when it comes to Medicare, but don't make the mistake of assuming Wyden is wrong on everything.

    As to the opposition of some Republicans to SOPA and PIPA, well, the blind squirrel comes to mind. And remember, the House member pushing this bill is a Republican.

    As to Pat Leahy, well, he has very strong and deep ties to the entertainment industry, including those draconian moves by RIAA. So, take his remarks with a grain of salt.

    I don't get Franken on this, but this is not the first time Franken has need up on what was, IMO, the wrong side of an issue. Nobody gets its right every time (except maybe Bernie Sanders).


    Gotta love Fark... (none / 0) (#76)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 12:50:50 PM EST
    They've gone "white" over at Fark, urging passage so they can go ahead and shut themselves down..."too much work".

    Cap'n H, thanks for your counter-points. (none / 0) (#81)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 03:01:22 PM EST
    This isn't nearly as simple an issue as some want us all to think it is.

    it really is not (none / 0) (#82)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 04:26:17 PM EST
    and frankly the herd mentality bothers me. (not necessarily talking about this blog) I am not saying pass it.  only that the issue is a real one that deserves more than endless repetition of misinformation.

    if I'm being 100% honest (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by CST on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 04:42:44 PM EST
    I struggle with the piracy "issue" as an issue.

    That is to say, I get on some level that it's wrong and that it's hurting artists.

    But on another level I was a college kid in the early 2000s.  And I'd feel like a total hypocrit supporting something like this.

    Even if you are right and it is only there to take down pirate bay, etc...  I'm not sure I feel comfortable supporting that.  And I know for certain "the web" wouldn't support it either.

    To a certain extent I feel like pirates are there to keep the media companies honest.  It gives the consumer a level of power they don't have in other types of business (like banking for example) And the media groups that play ball can succeed, while the ones that don't will struggle.  Louis CK figured it out.

    And then there is the point that Scott brought up.  The problem with regulating the internet is that the internet is smarter than you.  It reminds me of the anonymous debate.  Do they scare me?  Yea, they do.  The government scares me more though.  So I'm glad there is someone that scares the government on this $hit.  It's a balance of power question.


    thats a reasonable position (none / 0) (#88)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 05:06:12 PM EST
    I would suggest that is also reasonable that artists and creators of content have a right to control that content and profit from it and not have it stolen and distributed for free.

    I agree with that (none / 0) (#89)
    by CST on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 05:07:53 PM EST
    I don't pirate anymore for a reason.

    thats a good thing (none / 0) (#90)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 08:39:12 PM EST
    neither do I.  unfortunately the reason we are having this conversation is because that is not a universally held position.

    Honestly, this is incredible. (none / 0) (#91)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 08:41:07 PM EST
    Keeping them honest (by choosing to be dishonest)? What in heck does that even mean?  

    The artists and media co's jointly have a product for sale, and you (as I did, back in the day) stole that product.

    We, you and I, took what did not belong to us, without the permission of the owners.

    It's just plain wrong.

    But hey, if you think that's some sort of righteous retribution against Jayzee (sp?), or whoever else rocks your boat, sure, go with it.

    What's next, stealing Ferraris because you feel it's righteous?

    Sorry, you hit a chord here with me...


    righteous retribution? (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by CST on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 09:43:14 AM EST
    no, like I said, there is a reason I don't do it anymore.

    I just recognize that there is a greater consumer benefit to it.

    Let me ask you this - do you buy mp3s?  Are you glad that you are able to buy mp3s?  Do you ever use netflix or onDemand?  Because I believe those things would not exist if it weren't for pirates.

    It forces the market to be better at what they do.

    I'm not saying it's righteous.  I'm saying we all benefit from it.  And frankly, if artists and distributers are smart, they can figure out how to benefit from it too.  Because unfortunately, it seems like the pirates are the only real innovaters in the distribution market.  Since there is otherwise no incentive to change the model.  Bottom line, there is a reason people like you and I use to steal and don't anymore.  And unfortunately I don't think that reason is righteousness, I think it's convenience, and I'm trying to be honest about that.


    I can't really support stealing stuff (none / 0) (#94)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 11:33:37 AM EST
    because of the possibility that an unintended consequence of the stealng is an improvement in the product being stolen.

    In my time music distribution technology has gone from 78s to LPs to 8-tracks to cassettes to CDs and who knows all what else before it got to electronic distribution. I find it hard to believe it would not have gotten to electronic distribution were it not for the thieves.

    For me, I don't steal music anymore because I decided to accept that it is stealing and that I don't want to be someone who steals anymore.


    We already have anti-piracy and (5.00 / 0) (#95)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 11:51:35 AM EST
    copyright-infringement laws, don't we?  So, isn't the real argument about doing a better job of enforcing the laws we have, instead of creating new ones that have the potential to do more harm than good?

    I don't think I agree that individuals or websites that steal music, film and written material from their creators and make it available to the public are keeping movie, music and publishing companies honest - that just doesn't make sense to me, but maybe it's the kind of justification that does make sense if you're someone who's availed themselves of pirated material.

    The problem I have with these proposed laws is, for one, that it turns innocent-until-proven-guilty on its head, and has the potential to shut down online businesses and websites for some undetermined amount of time while whatever legal process plays out.  And then, if the accused is found not to have committed the alleged acts, what are the chances that the blog/site owner can resurrect his or her business after having all the traffic re-directed to a DOJ site - I mean, what do you imagine the average person concludes when they think they're going to Joe Smith's site to buy a product and find themselves staring at the intimidating logo of the Department of Justice?  How many people are going to be spooked into worrying that somehow, the DOJ will know they were trying to go to a website that is now under investigation, and maybe will end up getting caught up in the mess?  How will Joe Smith ever get his business back after that?

    There is a huge potential for larger sites to put smaller ones pretty much out of business.

    And then, there is all that censorship potential; when speech is stifled, when people are intimidated into silence, that is censorship passively at work as a result of these laws.  To me, it doesn't matter if the government says they aren't preventing people from saying or doing anything that is legal - if people feel they are in potential legal danger for what they say, what websites they look at, and self-censoring as a result, I blame the government, and laws like this that turn us all into potential criminals who can no longer be sure that we aren't doing something wrong that we don't know we're doing wrong until we are accused of wrongdoing and assumed to be guilty.

    By all means, go after those who may be violating piracy and copyright, but do it using the laws that already exist.


    Well said. (none / 0) (#98)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 01:03:11 PM EST
    I have not taken the time to really delve into the sufficiency or non-sufficiency of the existing laws that protect copyright, which is why I've stayed out of that (very large) part of this discussion.

    that too (none / 0) (#96)
    by CST on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 12:07:37 PM EST
    "For me, I don't steal music anymore because I decided to accept that it is stealing and that I don't want to be someone who steals anymore."

    Shoot, once it was available, I went out and bought all the music I had gotten for free.  So it's not just convenience since the most convenient thing for me to do would've been to just listen to the ones I already had.

    But in the early days of pirated music it was the only way to get that kind of music.  And that went on for years because music companies didn't want to sell individual mp3s.  For people who were headed in the direction of electronic distribution, they sure fought it pretty hard.

    Let me ask you this question, do you think you, and I, and everyone else who ever pirated music should go to jail and/or pay a massive fine for what we did?  If you can't answer yes to that question, how can you answer yes to doing it to others?  I for one, am not signing up for a prison term.  So I don't feel comfortable signing anyone else up either.  I'd feel like a hypocrit.


    That is a very good question. (none / 0) (#97)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 12:59:54 PM EST
    And thanks for explaining that you don't steal music anymore because it's stealing and it's wrong, I apologize if you said that before I and I missed it.

    I guess what you're really asking me is, because I was able to evade any consequences for stealing music back in the day (I copied friend's albums on my cassette recorder in HS) do I then think it should be OK for others to steal music today w/o consequence.

    No, I do not think it's OK for people to steal music today w/o consequence.


    When are you turning.... (none / 0) (#99)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 02:02:44 PM EST
    yourself in? ;)

    Like Anne said same laws that made it illegal then make it illegal now...there is no need to jam up the whole internet just to make copyright cops jobs easier.  Sh*t these online pirates have to be easier to catch than the old bootleggers making tapes or burning cd's under existing law...right?

    Another thought...didn't we get robbed paying for the same intellectual property on record, 8-track, tape, CD, and then MP3 as the technology changed?  or Beta, VHS, Laserdisc, DVD, Blu-Ray?  How many times we gonna have to buy the same record or film? ;)


    I totally agree with you on having to buy (none / 0) (#100)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 02:16:59 PM EST
    the same thing twice.

    And as I said to Anne, I'm only commenting on a very narrow aspect of this issue.


    Understood... (none / 0) (#101)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 03:04:18 PM EST
    We both respect artists and wanna see them paid...my main thing is when we give the government new powers to "crack down on crime", we should know by now to expect the worst when it comes to application and enforcement of the new law.  

    If it in fact does give the state the power to shutdown a website with a link to a website with pirated sh&t, I can't get down with that as a remedy to copyright infringement.  That's using a sledgehammer on a job that calls for a rubber mallet.

    I went to read the bill, but it's written in a foreign language, legalese.  One thing I noticed in the header..."to promote prosperity, creativity, entrepenuership, and innovaton by combating the theft of US property, and for other purposes."  My bold.

    That kinda newspeak made the hairs on the back of my neck stand up;)


    touche (none / 0) (#102)
    by CST on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 10:00:27 AM EST
    and no, I haven't pirated anything in a very long time.

    I just feel that having lived through the napster/morpheus days I'm in no position to tell anyone otherwise.  Not just because I used them but also because I'm gratefull for how they revolutionized the industry.  That being said, I don't necessarily disagree with them being taken down either - they were/are playing with fire.  I just can't personally fight them on it.


    Ha! Wait until you're a parent (none / 0) (#103)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 12:53:15 PM EST
    you'll spend decades telling your kids not to do the exact same stuff you did as a kid!

    Anyway, good discussion. Thanks.


    heh (none / 0) (#92)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 07:59:39 AM EST
    relatively speaking it was a reasonable position

    I should clarify that (none / 0) (#87)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 05:04:11 PM EST
    to say comments on this blog.

    I think Jeralyn has been fairer than most.