Register of Copyrights: without SOPA, copyright "will ultimately fail"
 

that is most likely true as we're half way there already... and sadly.

She's done a complete about-face... Religious conversion? Or pressure / money?

so she used to be anti-copyright and that's how she got the gig as head of copyright? I think you may be confused.

No, first she expressed reservations about Protect IP and SOPA, and now she's a cheerleader.
Next time I'm on the machine with the bookmarks I'll post them.

Well, it goes to show that sometimes even government officials can learn!heh

Probably because they hadn't got her input on the matter at that point.
Since she's ultimately in charge of implementing any new changes at the Library of Congress, i'm sure she'd first want to be certain that the Bill was taking her concerns into account.
From what i understand of her, she's pretty centrist when it comes to balancing creators' and public interests.
That she fully supports this Bill -- is a pretty good sign that it doesn't go 'to far'. In fact, she even mentions that it probably doesn't go 'far enough'...

I like the PROTECT IP bill, but SOPA is a bad bill. Find the ISPs, subpoena the heck out of stuff and find the dude/fine them to kingdom come but don't just stick a knee-jerk kill switch on a website or search engine that happens to spider a link to a website that may/may not have pirated content... The bill is way too broad and gives the government too much power..

that's just not the truth.

And how would you control them? Slap their little wristies? Send them to bed without dessert?

A law without effective enforcement is no law at all.

Same way they take care of hackers... If they are international, extradite the owners of the infringing site if it is a direct host (website) or service (torrents), subpoena the file lockers for IPs/logs, log the IPs of infringing torrents and go after them... Seize all of their computers, and have a mandatory minimum sentence of one million dollars or 5 years in prison for each count if found guilty...

Last summer they were in the process of extraditing a few people from different countries who were a part of Lulzsec that attacked PayPal, and they were on a VPN too. I don't see why they can't do the same for pirates.... The internet used to be over run with hackers and people who wrote brand new viruses that were massive, since they started getting PRISON time we don't see much of that anymore (we might see a few new ones a year instead of a hundred a day in the wild) and if it does mass damage the writers are caught pretty quickly...

Microsoft, Adobe, and LinkedIn have retracted their support. I could expect that from Apple/Google, but definitely not Microsoft and Adobe which has been the most outspoken and critical about piracy. Microsoft will flat out send a rep and blackies out to your house to make sure you have a license if your IP comes up on their list... I knew someone who got caught pirating Windows and had was given the choice to pay full price on the spot or have his computers seized and a lawsuit... Had a lovely visit from some US Marshals and a MS rep.

Setting the precedent for blocking websites treads uncomfortably towards the fine line of violating the right to free speech. Extradition and/or prosecution with harsh sentences is more practical and likely more effective in the long run... This is America, not China. :P

That would be nice... but we can't.
The pirate sites that weren't part of the ICE roundup (ie, most of them..)
are hosted in countries that won't extradite for IP violations (if they even recognize IP in the first place..)

Hence why we need SOPA and PROTECT IP to pass.

What success do you think a US court will have in subpoening(sp?) the records of a foreign service? And if there's a whiff of extradition, the services will move to countries without extradition agreements with the US if they aren't already there. The problems aren't insurmountable, but they do make it difficult.

Malware writers used to do it for bragging rights and were easily caught. Nowadays they do it for the money and keep quiet about it.

Like Russia or Iran would pay any attention...... Or any of a number of countries that don't have extradition agreements with the US.

Saudi Arabia, UAE, Afghanistan, Kosovo, etc.....

And there's more malware around than ever.

SOPA: It's Technology v. Congress

and Microsoft, arguably the most pirated software in the world, has pulled its support of the act.....

Oh man really....
Hardly surprising Google, Apple et al are against SOPA.
They've all grown fat on the back of illegal downloads. Apple rebuilt itself from near bankruptcy with the iPod.
Google? Give me a break.
The article is right about one thing, it really is the tech industry versus content creators battle. Tech has had all the running so far, especially as it is so huge and profitable. No politician is going to want to butt heads with Facebook, Google and Apple with an election looming.

Microsoft is dropping support because anything they put out does not work first edition anyway.You would have to have constant updates for anything of theirs if you expect it to function properly.That's why they don't care about hacked versions.

Sent from my PC36100 using Gearslutz.com

so how would SOPA really help Chris?

if Pirate Bay and other sites are in countries with no restrictions, how is it going to make any difference at all?-

really the only solution here is an entirely cloud based model. Which makes things even scary for free speech.

Well I'm not an American citizen and I haven't studied the law, so I have to leave that up to you guys.
All I can say is the Tech industry are obviously not ready to kill the goose that laid the golden egg, and in terms of free speech and human rights etc.... any loss of free speech on the web is purely theoretical at this point. Meanwhile, content creators are actually having their free speech and rights infringed thousands of times every day.
So do you act to mitigate an issue that's real and present, or do you not act because it might lead to something else?

Once upon a time "Ma Bell" grew into a huge monopoly, and eventfully the government recognized it was not healthy for the greater common good, so it was broken up to increase competitiveness.

Not exactly the same, but I do have some faith in our elected officials to find a workable and fair solution to balance the rights of creators with the interests of the tech sector.

What we have now is completely one sided favoring only tech interests which are completely unfair.

It will help by starting with revenue returning to proper distribution channels in the USA, which is the #1 entertainment market in the world.

That's a damn good start! Restoring sanity and fairness to the domestic marketplace alone would bring a large windfall in profits which would then create more jobs at home.

And there is nothing even remotely about censorship I this bill. There just is not.

Not a bad scenario.

have you read the bill? It is very vague as to what protected property is. That is the singular biggest issue with it.

If Wikileaks were to release something like, the salaries of Bank Of America's top executive, they could be blocked on the claim that they are "pirating" IP.

If the language clearly and SIMPLY stated that the object of protection IS A COMMERCIAL PRODUCT There would be very little dissent against the act-


that is not the case however.

But as you keep pointing out it's an American law and Wikileaks is purposely based offshore.
Aren't the salaries of Bank Of America executives published anyway, especially to share holders. Seems like anything, especially examples of info already in the public domain is being thrown at this bill to stop it.

as is pirate bay-

Have you ever looked at Wikileaks? I found out that a friend of mine who was killed in Iraq was killed by friendly fire due to the State Dept leaks that they released. The US government cannot block Wiki Leaks due to political pressure, even with the release of things like the Collateral Murder video. However, if a commercial interest petitioned for Wiki leaks to be blocked due to whistleblower materials, it would skirt those same political protections Wikileaks is using now.

It will be a game of whackamole for as long as the interest in free IP is out there. The protections need to be built into the container, not the travel method if real protection for the owner is desired.

the funny thing is that no one on the side for SOPA has a shred of an idea of what enforcement would look like.....

the issue is that the bill covers ill-definied materials.

This is not a free speech issue.

Can i repeat that? This is NOT a Free Speech issue.
(though, big monied interests that have profited BILLIONS of dollars off of us would like you to think so..)

Most information these days is subject to FOIA anyhow..
Freedom of Information Act (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Floyd Abrams, a renouned First Amendment Free Speech Lawyer has given his approval to the Bill.

MPAA Blog | Constitutional Expert: ‘Copyright Violations Are Not Protected by the First Amendment’

the MPAA is not what I would even for a moment consider an impartial party....


FOIA is not immediate, it is sometimes delayed by 50 or more years..... sorry, giant fail on the transparency front with that.
from your wiki page..... pure awesomeness on par with the SOPA....

2010 repeal of FOIA amendments in Wall Street reform act
The Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, signed into law in July 2010, included provisions in section 929I[26][27] that shielded the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) from requests under the Freedom of Information Act. The provisions were initially motivated out of concern that the FOIA would hinder SEC investigations that involved trade secrets of financial companies, including "watch lists" they gathered about other companies, trading records of investment managers, and "trading algorithms" used by investment firms.[28]

As to the monied interests-

the bill CANNOT DO ANYTHING TO STOP OFFSHORE SITES.

I would guess you think the Patriot act was great idea too....

So therefore you can't repeat your Wikileaks, freedom of speech scare story.
Effectively, any whistleblowing site could place themselves in a European country as Wikileaks has.


C'mon. I honestly wonder why this is becoming the default comeback from the anti-SPOA side.
The two laws have zero to do with each other. Creative people looking to protect themselves from current and blatant pillaging are not necessarily the kind of people to support anti-terrorism laws.... the two issues are just worlds apart.
It seems if you support action on copyright infringement, the anti SOPA posters here try to find something more onerous to throw at you, like imagined support for the Patriot Act. :facepalm:

Chris, if Wikileaks is blocked in the US, it effectively does- just like a pirate site, the point of a whistleblower site is to be available to the public- unlike a pirate site.... which sort of tries to go under the radar- at least since the DCMA- and the Limewire debacle.

Again- all the act has to say is that COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS ARE THE MATERIAL TO BE PROTECTED. Read the act, it doesnt.

And how is it going to do anything different prosecutionwise than the DMCA? no one seems to want to answer that....

as far as speaking against the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretaps and tracking with sealed court orders has become very fashionable here in the US, I guess the official secrets act openned that door in the UK sometime ago- I guess we can all be like lobsters before the boil- some here in the US know where the boil tends to lead to though.


lets just go to the very last clause of the SOPA to see what it says.....

`(3) MILITARY GOODS OR SERVICES-
`(A) IN GENERAL- A person who commits an offense under paragraph (1) shall be punished in accordance with subparagraph (B) if--
`(i) the offense involved a good or service described in paragraph (1) that if it malfunctioned, failed, or was compromised, could reasonably be foreseen to cause--
`(I) serious bodily injury or death;
`(II) disclosure of classified information;
`(III) impairment of combat operations; or
`(IV) other significant harm--
`(aa) to a member--

`(AA) of the Armed Forces; or

`(BB) of a Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency; or

`(bb) to national security or critical infrastructure; and

`(ii) the person had knowledge that the good or service is falsely identified as meeting military standards or is intended for use in a military or national security application, or a law enforcement or critical infrastructure application.
`(B) PENALTIES-
`(i) INDIVIDUAL- An individual who commits an offense described in subparagraph (A) shall be fined not more than $5,000,000, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both.
`(ii) PERSON OTHER THAN AN INDIVIDUAL- A person other than an individual that commits an offense described in subparagraph (A) shall be fined not more than $15,000,000.
`(C) SUBSEQUENT OFFENSES-
`(i) INDIVIDUAL- An individual who commits an offense described in subparagraph (A) after the individual is convicted of an offense under subparagraph (A) shall be fined not more than $15,000,000, imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.
`(ii) PERSON OTHER THAN AN INDIVIDUAL- A person other than an individual that commits an offense described in subparagraph (A) after the person is convicted of an offense under subparagraph (A) shall be fined not more than $30,000,000.'.

where is that Tyler Perry film mentioned? or the Dr Dre Beatz?