House of Drumming.com

That is about the most absurd line of reasoning I've ever heard. Not only because it's flat out wrong, the support of the bill is public, but because it's just silly.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3261/money

CBS is very obviously not the only or primary supporter of the bill. There are LOTS of HUGE corporations throwing a ton of money around.

Also piracy has been alive and well long before .com's were invented. We were just killing it back in the BBS days. Also about 70% of ALL internet traffic is via the BitTorrent protocol, something CBS had nothing to do with.

Continuing to wave about a silly conspiracy theory only undermines the position against SOPA. The strongest argument is simply, the US government has no business regulating anything that is owned and operated by private individuals spanning every country in the world.
SOPA is akin to the censorship of the internet seen in China and elsewhere. It's flat out fascist and wrong.

Luckily though, the odd's are extremely unlikely of the bill passing.

Josiah wrote:The strongest argument is simply, the US government has no business regulating anything that is owned and operated by private individuals spanning every country in the world.

When will you finally admit that it's not the Government which stands behind every major legislation in your country but lobbyists acting on behalf of those private individuals.

Josiah wrote:Luckily though, the odd's are extremely unlikely of the bill passing.

...and let's pray for that because after so many years of eyewashing people I'm pretty sure authorities will do everything they can to pass the bill as the world has a long time ago realised that politics does not certainly act in the good interest of people.

electrizer wrote:When will you finally admit that it's not the Government which stands behind every major legislation in your country but lobbyists acting on behalf of those private individuals.

Duh. Figured that was a given, particularly by the fact I put the link the finance behind it. I don't know what country you live in, but it doesn't matter. The only difference between the various countries governments are the size, but ALL governments make most their laws based on lobbying of some form or another. There is not a single active government on this planet that isn't riddled with corruption and for all intents laws are "purchased" by varying entities.

"Government" is an all encompassing term. The lobbying is just a much a part of it as anything else, if not more so, for ALL of them.

There are other plans emerging that are less dangerous than SOPA:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57339 ... -blocking/

As for CNET, I dont believe their relationship to CBS prevents them from reporting good info on this issue.

Would anyone care to chime in in support of the legislation? Does anyone at least think that it would NOT totally change the landscape of US internet?

I did some reading and I must admit I'm coming close to Josiah's reasoning.

Namely BitTorrent and Limewire were created in 2002 and 2000 respectively, so at least six years before CNET's acquisition by CBS in mid 2008. HOWEVER, why did a law-abiding broadcaster like CBS did not take the file sharing software off the download lists for more than three years? My guess would be because hits to CNET by people looking for that software ensured a steady flow of traffic to look at the ads CNET was paid to put up, and the entire SOPA fuss was going to happen at some point anyway so why not keep making some money until that time.

And however the creators and supporters of the bill are saying that "at least 16 countries block websites, and the internet still functions in those countries. Denmark, Finland and Italy block The Pirate Bay after courts ruled in favor of music and film industry litigation" (Wiki) I simply cannot believe that the apparent vague and broad wording of the bill will not help courts and copyright holders in abusing their powers under it.

As for the MONEY link provided by Josiah... I'm even surprised that this kind of information was made public. What other proof does everybody need before going out in the streets to take down that entire farce they call 'politics?' Dark times ahead...

Josiah wrote: . . . The strongest argument is simply, the US government has no business regulating anything that is owned and operated by private individuals spanning every country in the world. . . .

Legally, (and logically as history has well established), that is the weakest, most incompetent, argument you could possibly make. It would have no chance of success in any jurisdiction, before any tribunal or forum. Nevermind the well known historical abuses of unregulated commerce in the U.S. and worldwide. Without government regulation mandating internet neutrality, there would be no free and open internet right now. Further, the U.S. Constitution, Article I, states, in pertinent part [underlined emphasis added]:

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

electrizer wrote:http://www.salon.com/2012/01/03/left_and_right_congress_resists_the_stop_online_piracy_act/

Uggh! Darrell Issa is a corporate pimp of the highest order. If he has anything to do with it, it must worse than SOPA.

Henry II wrote:Legally, (and logically as history has well established), that is the weakest, most incompetent, argument you could possibly make. It would have no chance of success in any jurisdiction, before any tribunal or forum. Nevermind the well known historical abuses of unregulated commerce in the U.S. and worldwide. Without government regulation mandating internet neutrality, there would be no free and open internet right now. Further, the U.S. Constitution, Article I, states, in pertinent part [underlined emphasis added]:

This is true EXCEPT for the fact that SOPA would inadvertently, or intentionally, regulate entities NOT within the US's normal jurisdiction of commerce.

That's besides the fact, isn't it only commerce when money is exchanged? If I spend a few hours browsing the internet and spend no money. Commerce laws shouldn't be applicable.

That and I honestly believe the constitution is an antiquated and badly written document that should be thrown out. Referencing it, IMO, doesn't make the argument any stronger.


"Without government regulation mandating internet neutrality, there would be no free and open internet right now. "

How in the world is that true? They don't regulate jack squat currently. A few private companies do. Example, IP address's controlled by IANA, a private company.


Additionally here's the major flaw in SOPA - government, laws and crime fighting forces are always several steps behind. From the BBS, to private FTP servers, to the current bit torrent climate, it's simply untouchable.

It's like saying that copyright laws made a dent in mix tapes.


You give them an inch, they'll take 10 miles. That's the core problem with regulatory laws. Also, the issue of internet piracy should be about the last on the long list of issues that should be taken care of.

Call your rep everyday, it helps.