[die2mrw007]

hey guys, lets share your opinion about the SOPA/PIPA...whether you guys support it or are against it !!!

My Opinion: I don't totally disagree with SOPA/PIPA. It shouldn't be in force.

[fshagan]

Both bills are being withdrawn to re-write them. From what I've read, the bills targeted foreign websites, out of reach of the flawed but working DMCA law here, and would use DNS blocking to prevent US citizens from accessing sites accused of piracy. Then US financial companies, such as PayPal or Visa, are prohibited from processing payments from the sites, choking off all revenue.

I see three main problems.

One, it isn't needed; as we've seen with MegaUpload, where the US FBI raided a New Zealand server, law enforcement already has the ability to go after foreign sites.

Two, it uses a very low threshold for shutting off access to a site; an accusation made against a site takes down the entire site (the DMCA, in contrast, provides time for the webmaster to remove the offending content while the issue is resolved).

Third, it uses an atomic bomb approach to the problem, where a single complaint, proven or not, shuts down access to the site and all payment processing. It would be very easy for errors or even intentionally false charges to be filed, and the site may never recover.

I have a fourth reason that is from my libertarian impulses, and many people won't share this view. I believe power tends to consolidate, and we don't want to give too much power to law enforcement. They should have just enough, barely enough, to protect us from bad guys. Give them too much, and they become the bad guys.

[MikeDVB]

Some of the biggest issues in my mind with SOPA/PIPA as they stood (not sure how they will be rewritten) are:

• They remove a provider's DMCA protections against litigation due to the actions of a client. Under SOPA/PIPA - the hosting provider, transit providers, etc... can all be sued for the actions of a client whether or not they were aware of those actions as though they were accomplices.
  
• Fake reports can take a site or an entire server offline without due process, and it can be expensive to fight the false claim.
  
• It won't solve the issue they're trying to fix - those who want to pirate/share copyrighted materials will continue to do so.

A short video that pretty much sums it up can be seen here:
http://fightforthefuture.org/pipa/

[die2mrw007]

MikeDVB, on 27 January 2012 - 07:33 PM, said:

Some of the biggest issues in my mind with SOPA/PIPA as they stood (not sure how they will be rewritten) are:

• They remove a provider's DMCA protections against litigation due to the actions of a client. Under SOPA/PIPA - the hosting provider, transit providers, etc... can all be sued for the actions of a client whether or not they were aware of those actions as though they were accomplices.
  
• Fake reports can take a site or an entire server offline without due process, and it can be expensive to fight the false claim.
  
• It won't solve the issue they're trying to fix - those who want to pirate/share copyrighted materials will continue to do so.

A short video that pretty much sums it up can be seen here:
http://fightforthefuture.org/pipa/

Fake Reports are a matter of worry among genuine webmasters.
@Mike: Dont you think, the pirates can continue to share copyrighted materials via Off-shore Hosting ? Will Off-Shore Hosting prove beneficial to them ?

[fshagan]

die2mrw007, on 29 January 2012 - 07:33 AM, said:

Fake Reports are a matter of worry among genuine webmasters.
@Mike: Dont you think, the pirates can continue to share copyrighted materials via Off-shore Hosting ? Will Off-Shore Hosting prove beneficial to them ?

They will find a way to share files. They are crooks; that's what crooks do.

SOPA/PIPA were intended to address the offshore hosts by enabling censoring of them through DNS blocks, so no one American can reach those sites, then shut off their funding (if they use US payment gateways). But crooks, being crooks, would simply use a proxy to get their files.

The legal answer to piracy is to enforce the laws we have, obtain warrants to search servers, arrest, and prosecute the crimes. But because industry is powerful, they want to make their digital content more valuable than your car. A kid sharing 1,000 songs isn't accused of stealing $1,000 worth of merchandise, but has millions of dollars worth of civil liability. That's insane; if you steal my car, you don't get accused of stealing a fleet of cars. If you steal a song, you have stolen $1 or so of product.

Piracy is really a moral issue.

[MikeDVB]

die2mrw007, on 29 January 2012 - 07:33 AM, said:

Fake Reports are a matter of worry among genuine webmasters.
@Mike: Dont you think, the pirates can continue to share copyrighted materials via Off-shore Hosting ? Will Off-Shore Hosting prove beneficial to them ?

Originally the bills were supposed to target sites/services outside of the US, but they were modified/amended for any site, anywhere. Essentially the laws they're trying to pass would strip carriers and providers of their protections. The problem is that people are malicious and will file lawsuits not to solve the issue, but because they can.

A simple example is - let's say all of these laws pass - even if we do monitor the content of each and every customer (nearly impossible, we'd need to hire at least a hundred people which would make the cost of our hosting ridiculously high) - if we missed a single file we could easily be sued for tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars just because a user uploaded a file we didn't see/catch. One single file, with the new laws, could put just about any provider out of business.

What's worse is that it's not just the end-hosting provider, but the upstream providers as well - our facility, our networking providers, everybody becomes liable.

[die2mrw007]

MikeDVB, on 29 January 2012 - 01:29 PM, said:

Originally the bills were supposed to target sites/services outside of the US, but they were modified/amended for any site, anywhere. Essentially the laws they're trying to pass would strip carriers and providers of their protections. The problem is that people are malicious and will file lawsuits not to solve the issue, but because they can.

A simple example is - let's say all of these laws pass - even if we do monitor the content of each and every customer (nearly impossible, we'd need to hire at least a hundred people which would make the cost of our hosting ridiculously high) - if we missed a single file we could easily be sued for tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars just because a user uploaded a file we didn't see/catch. One single file, with the new laws, could put just about any provider out of business.

What's worse is that it's not just the end-hosting provider, but the upstream providers as well - our facility, our networking providers, everybody becomes liable.

I seriously hate SOPA/PIPA.... It shouldn't be enforced. Many major websites did expressed their support against SOPA/PIPA act by complete blackout day (wikipedia, xda forums, and many more). I hope, It will be withdrawn and not be in force. Otherwise, Internet will come to an END.

[MikeDVB]

I don't really see the point of the new laws myself, the government an corporations already have the power to take offending sites offline. Look at sites like megaupload.com for example - SOPA/PIPA do not exist right now, yet they took a site hosted on foreign soil offline.