Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Government United States Politics Your Rights Online

Lawmakers Intent On Approving SOPA, PIPA 513

snydeq writes "U.S. Congress appears likely to move forward with SOPA and PIPA, despite widespread opposition, IDGNS reports. The U.S. Senate is expected to begin floor debate on PIPA shortly after senators return to D.C. on Jan. 23, and supporters appear to have the votes to override a threatened filibuster. Some opponents of the bills hold out hope: 'We're optimistic that if members really understood the Internet architecture and cybersecurity measures, they would not support SOPA as written. Instead, members who are really committed to combatting online piracy would look for effective ways to do that without compromising cybersecurity or the open architecture of the Internet,' said a CCIA spokesperson. Others remain doubtful that Congress will come to this understanding."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Lawmakers Intent On Approving SOPA, PIPA

Comments Filter:
  • Freedom (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ae1294 ( 1547521 ) on Saturday January 07, 2012 @11:37AM (#38621626) Journal

    You are free to do as we tell you. Buy BUY BUY....

    • Re:Freedom (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 07, 2012 @11:40AM (#38621644)
      Was just on yesterday and saw that Sen. Mark Kirk from IL got over $760,000 from pro-PIPA/SOPA interests. I'm gunna go out on a limb and guess I know which way he's going. Meanwhile, the other one is Dick Durbin, a bill co-sponsor.

      Illinois Sucks.
      • Re:Freedom (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 07, 2012 @11:42AM (#38621664)

        lately, everything our "leaders" do sucks

        • Re:Freedom (Score:5, Funny)

          by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Saturday January 07, 2012 @12:29PM (#38622060)

          Well, Belgium didn't have a government for about a year.

          Lucky bastards...

          • Re:Freedom (Score:5, Insightful)

            by dna_(c)(tm)(r) ( 618003 ) on Saturday January 07, 2012 @12:41PM (#38622180)

            Well, Belgium didn't have a government for about a year.

            Lucky bastards...

            Apparently, the rest of the world doesn't need one. Our beloved WWW is ruled by the World Senate in Washington D.C. (Department of Commerce).

            Just like we pay 5$ to MS for an Android device, covered by software patents that don't apply over here.

            • Re:Freedom (Score:4, Insightful)

              by SuperTechnoNerd ( 964528 ) on Saturday January 07, 2012 @02:49PM (#38623414)
              "Our beloved WWW is ruled by the World Senate in Washington D.C."
              And it's worse than that now. Once thees bills pass the government will have handed over the reigns to the mega media thugs and content providers. No government, No judges, No Due process. No recourse. No Freedom
          • Re:Freedom (Score:4, Insightful)

            by gstrickler ( 920733 ) on Saturday January 07, 2012 @12:49PM (#38622270)

            In Texas, the legislature only meets ever other year. The less often the legislature is in session, the better is it for the people.

            • Re:Freedom (Score:4, Funny)

              by cforciea ( 1926392 ) on Saturday January 07, 2012 @12:57PM (#38622354)
              What, you think what we have here in Texas is good?
              • Re:Freedom (Score:4, Funny)

                by gstrickler ( 920733 ) on Saturday January 07, 2012 @01:17PM (#38622526)

                It's better than most of the country, and the world.

                • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                  by Jawnn ( 445279 )
                  Dear gawd, by what metric could possibly arrive at that conclusion? Texas is, for the most part, socially and politically backwards, to say the least. It's largest cities are filthy and crime-ridden. It's government has tried, repeatedly, to advance their backwards notions on the state's school children. It is an embarrassment to the rest of the nation, enough so that one wishes it actually would secede, as it's latest idiot governor has suggested.
                  • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                    by some1001 ( 2489796 )
                    Your ignorance is astounding. Plus, I like how you attack Texas about education, yet you seem to lack understanding of when to use "it's" and "its." Attacking other states about their education places you on the high ground; when you can't even use simple English right, that high ground just doesn't look so high anymore, ya?

                    On the subject, Texas is doing fine for itself. Outside of some crazy conservatives and the oppressive summers, it's a good state with a lot of good non-unionized work to be found. Di
                • Re:Freedom (Score:5, Informative)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 07, 2012 @05:11PM (#38624772)

                  ROFL? Really?

                  Texas has some of the worst human-factors statistics in the western world.

                  How about a comparison by states?

                  Percentage of Uninsured Children
                  Income Inequality Between the Rich and the Poor
                  Percentage of Population without Health Insurance
                  Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT) Scores
                  High School Graduation Rate:
                  Home insurance Costs:
                  Electricity Costs:
                  Teen Pregnancy Rate:
                  Birth Rate:
                  Vaccination of children:
                  Large City Homicide Rate (Houston):
                  Percentage of Population over 25 with a High School Diploma
                  Percentage of Non-Elderly Women with Health Insurance
                  Rate of Women Aged 40+ Who Receive Mammograms
                  Rate of Women Aged 18+ Who Receive Pap Smears
                  Cervical Cancer Rate
                  Women's Voter Registration
                  Women's Voter Turnout
                  Percentage of Eligible Voters that Vote

                  Everything's bigger in Texas.

      • Re:Freedom (Score:5, Insightful)

        by The Snowman ( 116231 ) on Saturday January 07, 2012 @12:02PM (#38621826)

        Was just on yesterday and saw that Sen. Mark Kirk from IL got over $760,000 from pro-PIPA/SOPA interests. I'm gunna go out on a limb and guess I know which way he's going.

        QFT. They don't understand SOPA, don't want to understand. What they do understand is someone is giving tons of money to pass a bill.

        Business as usual in Congress.

        What I would like to see happen is repealing all the extra copyright legislation such as the DMCA and not passing any more. Let the content producers use the existing system to sue copyright infringers. Our existing copyright law works. It has teeth. It just requires things such as "evidence" and "due process," which is an annoyance to Hollywood. However, I doubt this will ever happen.

        • Re:Freedom (Score:5, Insightful)

          by SuricouRaven ( 1897204 ) on Saturday January 07, 2012 @12:25PM (#38622026)
          The situation with copyright isn't unique to that field. It is just an example of a law for which mass-enforcement is near-impossible: Violation occurs with such frequency that even with all the efforts of interests public and private it is impossible to prosecute more than a tiny proportion of even the obviously guilty. This is further compounded by how lightly the law is regarded by the public.

          In such a situation, there are a few options available:
          1. Give up. Dont' do anything, just don't bother enforcing the law, and it it fall into obscurity.
          2. Make it enforceable via draconian measures - get rid of the difficulties of fair trials and the need to gather evidence for the minor cases, and make the enforcement process as quick and cheap as possible. This does run the risk of punishing some innocent people, but that is the cost of catching all of the guilty.. That was the purpose of the DMCA: It wasn't practical to sue every site hosting a pirated file, so the DMCA allowed copyright holders to achieve much the same with nothing more than a quick email. SOPA takes the same approach a step further.
          3. Decriminalisation. If everyone is breaking a law, and the government can't stop them, then accept that perhaps the law itsself is at fault and needs to be abandoned - possibly to be replaced with something more workable.

          The currently popular approach with politicians around the world is option two.
          • felonies en masse (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Oxford_Comma_Lover ( 1679530 ) on Saturday January 07, 2012 @12:28PM (#38622054)

            Actually, this is worse than usual--the definition of the willfulness requirement for criminal copyright, technically ambiguous for about a century, will make it absolutely clear that a massive percentage of the American population--even those who have never shared a file in their life--will be felons.

            • by dbet ( 1607261 ) on Saturday January 07, 2012 @04:18PM (#38624320)
              That's the point. The government wants everyone to be felons. It gives them license to pick on whoever they want, any time they want. This is of course perfectly fine for most Americans who are so stupid as to think that selective enforcement will never apply to them. Everyone is in such denial about our government being evil, that they're happy to continue pretending that it's not. In less than 10 years we'll be in another war where we'll kill another 100,000 non-combatants and call it freedom.
      • by AngryDeuce ( 2205124 ) on Saturday January 07, 2012 @12:21PM (#38621982)

        Our founding fathers declared themselves an independent country and went to war over shit like this. No taxation without representation...are we truly represented in this government? The people? Of course not. It's time to stop trying to play their stupid game, the game is rigged against us from the start. It's time to start flipping boards...

        We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

        Revolution is our birthright. The Bill of Rights grants all U.S. citizens the right of revolution by guaranteeing the freedoms that facilitate it, freedoms that our government has been trying to rein in with every passing year. Every branch of this government is corrupt. We have no representation in congress anymore. History has come full circle...

        Time to start looking to those 2nd Amendment solutions, boys and girls. Put your trust in God, but keep your powder dry. I never in a million years thought I would see this in my lifetime, but it seems that it is inevitable at this point.

        • by suomynonAyletamitlU ( 1618513 ) on Saturday January 07, 2012 @02:11PM (#38623010)

          I don't think you understand revolution, and in particular why the US had one. Two, if you count the civil war as an attempt at revolution that failed.

          At the time of the US revolution, a minority approved of it. However, at the time, virtually everyone was self-reliant, or could be. The choice was essentially between the old European governments establishing control over the colonies, or them having their own, local government. Civil war (by which I still mean the US revolution) was acceptable because there was no horrible consequence to temporary anarchy. It turned out to be an excellent idea, because a bunch of idealists were able to determine the form of government, which is in the end what you (and I, were it practical) are espousing.

          In the modern US, specialization of labor has replaced self-reliance to an ungodly degree. The existence of metropolises, and suburbs, is proof of that. There are many places where even temporary anarchy would spell the deaths of hundreds of thousands, or millions, because food and medicine is not produced locally. That means any attempt at violent revolution would be, in effect, telling those people to sacrifice themselves for your idealism. Considering the focus of your idealism is on a bill that regulates theft from the entertainment industry, you're going to have a hard time convincing Joe Public.

          Meanwhile, the existing government has a 100% foolproof way to convince Joe Public: Thousands will die. There is somewhere on the order of zero chance that a violent populist uprising will work.

          The best chance the US has of "revolution" is someone getting elected who takes up the mantle of tyrrany only long enough to put the people in jail who deserve to be in jail (politicians, corporates, and the sleazeballs who encourage their behavior), and changes the system to remove the vulnerabilities, before stepping back and letting Democracy work again. Sort of a modern-day George Washington; remember, at the time of the revolution, he had control of the military, and many people wondered if he would honor his promise to step down and hold elections, especially since there was still turmoil going on.

          Is this a good idea? No, because you have to look very, very closely at anyone who would take up the mantle of tyranny, and make sure that they don't do it for the wrong reasons, and given our track record of politicians, we won't look that closely, and they'll probably be bad people. It's not that it can't work, but finding the right person to do it is essentially impossible.

          "To summarize: it is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem." ~The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

    • Re:Freedom (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 07, 2012 @11:43AM (#38621672)

      No, no, no. We won't buy. This legislation, which is so tilted against the interests of the vast majority of the populace, which imperils the functioning of the internet, will cause piracy to explode. Because this law will give pirates something they've never had until now. Moral sanction.

      More people will feel it is right to steal from Hollywood, than to buy from them. And that will seal their fate.

      It'll seal ours too, more's the pity, as our internet struggles to survive.

      • Re:Freedom (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Wonko the Sane ( 25252 ) * on Saturday January 07, 2012 @11:51AM (#38621744) Journal

        This legislation, which is so tilted against the interests of the vast majority of the populace

        I don't know how much more evidence it is going to take before people stop listening to the propaganda and start facing reality.

        They don't care.

        Representative government is a myth. It's a contradiction; there are rulers (those who govern) and there are subjects (those who are governed). Guess which one you are? []

        • Re:Freedom (Score:4, Funny)

          by jhoegl ( 638955 ) on Saturday January 07, 2012 @12:14PM (#38621932)
          A non-voting felon?
        • Re:Freedom (Score:5, Insightful)

          by dissy ( 172727 ) on Saturday January 07, 2012 @01:20PM (#38622542)

          Most Americans are suffering fro such a horible case of Stockholm syndrome, that they will never wake up or believe you.

          You can see it perfectly here on /.
          It's frothing over in the summary and article!

          "If only I can change him, he wouldn't be such a bad person. I just need to get him to understand" while at the same time getting the crap beaten out of them daily.
          People refuse to look at the actions and still believe the words.

          Our government is very aware of the results of SOPA. This is their goal and plan.
          Making them "understand" is exactly like trying to convince the abusive husband to stop what he's convinced is the proper behavior for his entire life.

          You see it in the comments here as well, and arguing with such people is just as frustrating as trying to get your childhood female friend to leave the guy that beats her nightly but just won't leave because "Next time will be different"
          She will actively fight any help you try to give her, since your "help" goes contrary to what she wants to believe.

          So they put the blinders on and convince themselves that it's the government that doesn't understand the SOPA effects, and if only they can bring them around...

          The one and only goal of SOPA, is so they can point at any random website they wish, and be 100% assured that website is performing criminal activity, because they made sure ALL websites are performing criminal activity.
          SOPA never did and never will have squat to do with copyright or piracy or justice.

          To the parent poster: Thank you for existing! At least there are a tiny handful of us who aren't suffering from this Stockholm affliction, and even if we are less than 1% of the population, it gladdens me to see there are still at least a few left.

          It only pains me deeply to know what kind of country, and what type of people, we will be surrounded by and immersed in next month :{
          Just like how a lot of Chinese citizens fully support their governments censorship, and there are not enough left against it to be able to do anything about it. We are now in a similar situation.

    • Re:Freedom (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 07, 2012 @11:55AM (#38621780)

      Congress understands the Internet just fine. They don't use it much, but seriously, they get it. The issue here is not ignorance or stupidity, but loyalty. They owe favors to powerful lobbies, and those favors include restrictive legislation that will pull the claws right off the Internet and return the technological landscape back to a state where specific old business models were extremely profitable.

      They understand the Internet, and they want to make it go away. For want of that ability, they want to make it so useless that it may as well be gone. They pay lip service to its importance because of its popularity, but since they don't rely upon it themselves they simply don't buy in.

      To modify a popular quote...don't attribute to ignorance that which obviously stems from malice.

      • Agreed (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Brain-Fu ( 1274756 ) on Saturday January 07, 2012 @12:03PM (#38621840) Homepage Journal

        Education, and logical argument based on the realities of the technology, won't make our representatives budge. The only way to get them to change their position is to apply real political force. That means forming lobbies and throwing actual money at the problem, just like the large corporations do. It also means getting enough people ready and willing to vote for candidates who will actually represent them.

        Of course, producing that level of political force requires a huge amount of cooperation (and hence understanding) from the governed. *THAT* is hard to do. Most American people, even the ones who vote and consider themselves politically involved, don't understand these issues well enough to self-organize properly. That is why the wealthy corporations (which for all practical purposes are already well-organized political armies with a handful of people calling the shots) have such an easy time of pushing the rest of us around.

        THEY aren't the ones who don't understand. We are.

      • Re:Freedom (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Saturday January 07, 2012 @12:48PM (#38622266)

        Actually, the internet is right the opposite of what they'd probably want: A medium where anyone, anywhere, anytime can publish his information to anyone, anywhere, anytime. This is anathema to governments. By definition.

        Government, also the US government, suffered blows from free press. More than one government tripped and fell over the opinion generated by the press. It's not coincidentally called the "fourth power" in a country.

        Press now can be brought under control by various means. That doesn't apply to fully independent bloggers and self proclaimed reporters who do it for various, non-profit reasons. They're not dependent on money from government or corporations, and sometimes not even subject to the country's legislation they write about.

        That is of course a threat to any government.

  • Can't wait (Score:5, Interesting)

    by alphatel ( 1450715 ) * on Saturday January 07, 2012 @11:41AM (#38621650)
    Internet blackout day is sure to be a historical event for all ages.
    • Re:Can't wait (Score:4, Insightful)

      by DCTech ( 2545590 ) on Saturday January 07, 2012 @11:43AM (#38621678)
      I doubt Google is going to do it, it would cost them too much money.
      • Re:Can't wait (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Nimatek ( 1836530 ) on Saturday January 07, 2012 @11:44AM (#38621684)
        SOPA would cost them so much more than that..
      • Re:Can't wait (Score:5, Insightful)

        by click2005 ( 921437 ) * on Saturday January 07, 2012 @11:50AM (#38621740)

        I'd love to see Google de-list ALL SOPA/PIPA supporting organisations, even if its just for a day.
        Amazon could stop selling products from the same people.

        • Re:Can't wait (Score:4, Insightful)

          by adamchou ( 993073 ) on Saturday January 07, 2012 @12:22PM (#38621996)
          just for a day? they should do it permanently. what does google have to gain from listing them? listing them will only drive more revenue to those sponsors which will just increase the amount of money those supporters will use to drive forward legislative acts that take away our rights
          • Re:Can't wait (Score:4, Insightful)

            by click2005 ( 921437 ) * on Saturday January 07, 2012 @12:38PM (#38622150)

            No, because its about making a point. If Google starts to delist thing just because they disagree with something then where will it end.
            Should they delist Apple because they're a competitor who condones slave labour in China?
            Should they delist religions because they are evil, offensive and promote hatred?

        • Re:Can't wait (Score:5, Insightful)

          by AngryDeuce ( 2205124 ) on Saturday January 07, 2012 @01:11PM (#38622480)

          I'd love to see Google de-list ALL SOPA/PIPA supporting organisations, even if its just for a day.

          Which will immediately followed by: BREAKING NEWS, Google Declared a Monopoly, Justice Department promises "steep fines"...

          The government isn't going to sit idly by and let Google exact their influence if it diminishes their own. I wouldn't be surprised if something like that would qualify as a "terrorist act". $10 says that, if this actually occurs, our lawmakers refer to it as a "digital 9/11". I know they'll work the 9/11 rhetoric in there somewhere...

      • Re:Can't wait (Score:4, Insightful)

        by spire3661 ( 1038968 ) on Saturday January 07, 2012 @12:30PM (#38622078) Journal
        It cost them a ton of money to pull out of China but they did it. Google has a mouth and the balls to back it up. China, FCC spectrum, Chrome. They do put their money where their mouth is.
      • Re:Can't wait (Score:5, Interesting)

        by mvar ( 1386987 ) on Saturday January 07, 2012 @12:36PM (#38622128)

        Opponents of the bill include Google, Yahoo!, Facebook, Twitter, DynDNS, AOL, LinkedIn, eBay, Mozilla Corporation, the Wikimedia Foundation and human rights organizations such as Reporters Without Borders the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the ACLU, and Human Rights Watch.

        Forget for a moment mozilla, wikipedia or the other non-profit organizations - with all those companies (amazon, yahoo, facebook, google) opposing SOPA, isn't it very weird that this proposed law hasn't been canceled already? Does the MPAA/RIAA block have more lobby-power than all those companies combined?

        • Re:Can't wait (Score:5, Informative)

          by AngryDeuce ( 2205124 ) on Saturday January 07, 2012 @01:14PM (#38622510)

          Does the MPAA/RIAA block have more lobby-power than all those companies combined?

          Yes, the MAFIAA has been throwing dump trucks of money at our representatives since their inception. That's why there is so much bipartisan support for this bill; they buy off both sides equally...

        • Re:Can't wait (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Bob9113 ( 14996 ) on Saturday January 07, 2012 @01:45PM (#38622750) Homepage

          Does the MPAA/RIAA block have more lobby-power than all those companies combined?

          Yes, the MAFIAA gives more campaign money than the tech companies, but that's not all. There is another huge factor at work.

          Once SOPA passes, precedent will have been set for censoring the Internet. With the MAFIAA taking most of the heat for the censorship wrap, the politicians can pass the bill under the guise of not understanding how the Internet works. Then, a year or two from now, they pass the law that lets them do the same for terr'rists. Actually, correction, they attach an amendment of the PATRIOT act to the defense budget bill, and they do it in the panic'd last minutes to avert a budget shutdown (that they fabricated). It will happen on a Friday, or the Thursday before a holiday weekend, to give the public he whole weekend to forget.

          Only thing I might be wrong about is the "year or two" part. Things have been moving faster and faster -- might happen before Summer's out.

    • Re:Can't wait (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 07, 2012 @11:51AM (#38621746)
      Yes yes, protests are all fine, but where were Google when SOPA was being drafted? The technology companies are larger than the media companies. Where's their presence in Washington, precisely?
      • Re:Can't wait (Score:5, Interesting)

        by AngryDeuce ( 2205124 ) on Saturday January 07, 2012 @11:58AM (#38621798)

        Yes yes, protests are all fine, but where were Google when SOPA was being drafted?

        Getting slammed with anti-trust bullshit. Google is "the enemy" to a lot of people in Congress right now, because they're marching to the orders of the MAFIAA.

        Besides, Google's testimony was pretty much completely dismissed by the committee right to their face. They more or less said "I don't understand how this is going to negatively effect the internet nor do I care." They never had any intention of listening to a fucking word anyone said in opposition.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward
          Committee meetings? Think about this for a second: how do you think SOPA ever even got to the floor in the first place? Because lobbyists from the media companies said "We want this to happen". Where were the technology companies (including, but not limited too, Google) when this was happening? The companies who oppose legislation like SOPA weren't there to say "We DON'T want this to happen", because they're all non-entities in Washington. They're not organised, and they don't lobby. Until they do, legislat
        • calling google for 'defense' is a joke, too.

          they are not your friends. they have their OWN agenda. if this affects their dear doubleclick, they get annoyed! they don't care one whit about you or your so-called freedom. the only freedom they want is to keep owning the internet, bit by bit. (have you seen all the outbound connects that go to google domains when you do almost ANYTHING non-goog based? I have. google is, sadly, in everyone's pie, these days).

          I don't trust the gov as they have hidden agend

  • Understanding? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 07, 2012 @11:42AM (#38621656)

    I think it's pretty naïve to think that SOPA passing is an issue of understanding, as though lawmakers wouldn't consider it if they knew anything about technology.

    The vast majority or these people have already been bought and paid for by the entertainment industry. Their technological knowledge is irrelevant. They need to be removed from office, not educated.

  • by Joe_Dragon ( 2206452 ) on Saturday January 07, 2012 @11:43AM (#38621676)

    competitors with little proof.

    Hell apple and MS can both file claims and shut down each other web sites.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Gee, if someone wrote a program to automatically submit a claim against a site, and someone else wrote an extension to use that program to submit a claim against every single internet site on the planet, and many many people used it all at the same time, I wonder what would happen?

  • Yay! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Dan East ( 318230 ) on Saturday January 07, 2012 @11:43AM (#38621682) Journal

    Good! I have a thing for legislation with pronounceable acronyms. In fact, that's really the only important part. I'm sure many legislators would agree.

  • Coming soon... (Score:4, Informative)

    by mark-t ( 151149 ) <markt@nerdflat.cCHICAGOom minus city> on Saturday January 07, 2012 @11:48AM (#38621720) Journal

    Soon, I expect it will be illegal for any private individual to utilize the services of a foreign DNS. Blocking by IP address will probably start happening. Owing to the lack of availability of IPv4 address space, the practicality of places using different IP's to continue to allow connectivity will be impeded, so IP address blocking may enjoy limited success. Incentives for IPv6, where there is no lack of address space, will start to quickly rise among the pirate communities to get around this limitation, but I expect this will likely be perceived as a measure that is created to bypass SOPA, and so new laws will probably be formed that will limit IPv6's overall adoption rate.

    I hope I'm wrong. I just have a really awful feeling I'm not.

  • by davidbrit2 ( 775091 ) on Saturday January 07, 2012 @11:51AM (#38621748) Homepage
    Put up a site outing the names of every lawmaker that ever votes in favor of such a bill, and allow visitors to sign a petition pledging to vote against anybody that does so. Show the count on the site, and forward a list of those who signed to said lawmakers a week before any major vote on the issue. That should make them sweat.
    • by ae1294 ( 1547521 ) on Saturday January 07, 2012 @12:02PM (#38621832) Journal

      Put up a site outing the names of every lawmaker that ever votes in favor of such a bill, and allow visitors to sign a petition pledging to vote against anybody that does so. Show the count on the site, and forward a list of those who signed to said lawmakers a week before any major vote on the issue. That should make them sweat.

      Really no reason for the site to be real. They won't know. Problem is they don't care. They leave congress and get a nice job handed to them along with a kilo of blow and three underage hookers.

      • quite right.

        Once they're in office they're untouchable, so they have no incentive to give a shit about their voters. In the rare cases that the voters won't stay pissed long enough to do anything about it come election time, the few surviving ragers will be placated when the cheat sheat of the dirty dozen gets conveniently nuked by SOPA.

        SOPA will not only stamp out piracy, but it will solidify the lobbyist's grip on their congress critters. After the stunt UMG pulled on mega upload's youtube video I have

  • by quasius ( 1075773 ) on Saturday January 07, 2012 @12:00PM (#38621808)
    Has anyone written a good article on why this is so bad that non-geeks could understand? Something you could link non-technical friends to?
    • by betterunixthanunix ( 980855 ) on Saturday January 07, 2012 @12:06PM (#38621856)
      How about the simplest explanation possible: this is what the authoritarian governments of China and Iran do, and they have been heavily criticized by the very hypocrites who are voting for this law. Why mire people down with technical issues when we can take the direct approach that reminds them that their elected representatives are corrupt, two-faced, and failing to represent their interests?
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by quasius ( 1075773 )
        Not good enough. People don't give a shit about high-minded ideals like "freedom." Also, China and Iran are evil because they are evil- when we do similar things it's because of good and stopping terrorism or something. What is the one-liner that tells non-geeks why it's bad *for them* and will disrupt *their* lives?
    • by Nemyst ( 1383049 ) on Saturday January 07, 2012 @01:24PM (#38622564) Homepage

      These infographics [] might be the most succint and direct explanations of why SOPA is bad.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by b4dc0d3r ( 1268512 )

        "What sites are at the greatest risk? Sites where people are expressing themselves...." That's why it has bipartisan support. Congress hates that. Normal people will oppose it, but anyone powerful enough to keep themselves in power through censorship will take full advantage of that power.

        That is the main reason I am opposed to it, the inevitable abuse of power that seems to follow from every seemingly innocent government power grab.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 07, 2012 @12:00PM (#38621812)

    Whoever votes for this, their ISPs should disconnect their household from the internet entirely.

    Some people on slashdot are saying things like, "this could end up disconnecting youtube!" But that's just the problem: it won't. Youtube is huge, everyone knows about it, nobody is going to want to cut it off. And that's where the problem lies: this legislation will be used only against less popular sites on the fringes and the margins - things the average DWTS watching idiot doesn't care about. So there will never be significant public support against it. THAT is why it's dangerous.

  • by roman_mir ( 125474 ) on Saturday January 07, 2012 @12:12PM (#38621918) Homepage Journal

    The government is shaking down the Internet related businesses, and that's what these laws are aimed at I think. The politicians are looking at Google, Yahoo, Amazon, etc., and asking themselves a question: WHAT THE FUCK? Why aren't these putzes paying us the racket money like the rest of them? Of-course those businesses are also paying something that has to do with taxes, but there is so much money there (and everybody knows about it), that the politicians want more than just tax optimization/evasion money, they want REAL money, they want - "hey, you have a nice business going here, it would be a shame if something was to happen to your entire business model and you were shut down" money.

    That, and also of-course they want the RIAA and MPAA money and they want ISP money and they want your money and they want to be able to shut down the Internet because it's scaring them - just look at the way Ron Paul support grew because of the Internet.

    So you have too much freedom - and that's what politicians want to take away and I had a long [] discussion [] about the fact that every single law that politicians push forward ends up reducing your freedoms and increases 'strength' of the government while weakening the individual liberties and the economy and the society of the nation, and even on this site people don't see this.

  • Technical solutions? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Felix Da Rat ( 93827 ) on Saturday January 07, 2012 @12:13PM (#38621924)

    I'm doing what I can on the social front (emailing and calling), but if (when) this does pass, what is the best way to route around the damage on a personal level?

    We got a large number of suggestions for alternate providers with the GoDaddy debacle; can we get some suggestions of good international VPN / Proxy providers? Alternate suggestions for dealing with this?

  • by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Saturday January 07, 2012 @12:16PM (#38621952)

    If I vote for it, I get a kickback, if I vote against it, I get squat.

  • by RyanFenton ( 230700 ) on Saturday January 07, 2012 @12:17PM (#38621956)

    I'm quite confused about who this serves.

    Usually, moves like these are pushed as in the interests of large corporate interests - but as far as I can understand the only company interests this will actually serve will be law firms and a few confused entertainment groups that don't mind acting like public villains to punish their potential customers.

    The whole thing just looks like a big legal clusterfuck - where everyone demands everyone else pull everything from the internet. The net effect will just be a huge drain on the economy, as even more resources are spent on useless legal back-and-forths, and everyone gets even more nervous before being able to accomplish something businesswise in the world.

    The net effect should mostly be to deepen the recession, force more consolidation with a smaller pool of useful resources for everyone, and push more business out of the US.

    It just doesn't make sense - why would any lawmaker be interested in lowering the economic tides for everyone, further stalling a huge and important part of our economic recovery just for the sake of a very small number of companies without much actual money?

    From a moral perspective it makes no sense - which is what I usually expect - but even from a sociopathic perspective of gathering resources at all costs, it makes no sense.

    Ryan Fenton

    • Think a bit outside the box. Especially, don't see it as the end product. It's the first step towards a legislation that allows to pull content off the net. Because, well, you already HAVE to implement it, why not give us the right to pull content off for ... well, we'll get to that once the whole thing is in and running.

  • by smpoole7 ( 1467717 ) on Saturday January 07, 2012 @12:20PM (#38621972) Homepage

    Some of you won't like this, but I hope you'll at least give this a hard consideration. The bottom line is that it's our fault.

    For example, I know from the comments here over the years that some of you are complete partisans. I'm surprised that, even this early in this thread, we haven't already seen "It's the Evil Republicans(tm)," followed by, "no, it's the stupid Democrats," complete with scores that go up and down like a VU meter on a rap tune: troll, insightful, back to troll, then insightful, over and over, as each partisan group lashes out.

    BOTH PARTIES ARE CORRUPT AND HAVE SOLD YOU OUT. This doesn't mean there aren't a few honest congresscritters running loose. But folks, there's a REASON why, during the primaries, candidates can call each other every name in the book, but once a nominee is selected, all of the losers magically say, "well, of course I'll support him/her! He/She is a fine person!"

    It's all about the money and the power: Chairmanships in Congress, lucrative appointments, voting blocks and power brokers. This plays out every two years, and the best we can do is scream, "less filling/tastes great/less filling/tastes great," Dem vs. Repub over and over.

    Here's the example that some of you really, really aren't going to like. I know (again, from reading comments) that there are some of you here who supported the Health Care bill, but who are vehemently opposed to SOPA. (For the record, I am in opposition to BOTH.) You can't have it both ways. Every reputable poll ever taken has shown that the American people were strongly opposed to that HealthCare bill, but there were some of you here who said, "yay!" when it passed. You called those who passed it, even knowing that they might be un-elected, "brave heroes."

    (Or, a quick conservative example: Scott Brown wins Ted Kennedy's old seat in Mass, and right wingers rejoiced. A few months later, he voted for a treaty that the right wing hated. They attacked Brown and wondered why he had "betrayed" them. What they should have asked was, "what do the people of Massachusetts want?" If he was reflecting their desires, they need to SHUT UP. He represents THEM, not a party or an ideology.)

    So, SOPA. If you can convince enough Congresscritters that enough of US care to un-elect them if they vote for it, it can be stopped. But if they (and more importantly, their strategists) convince themselves that they can finesse it, or find some other issue that will cause you to hold your nose and re-elect them, they'll vote for SOPA.

    In plain English: some of you who hate the "Repugs" may have to vote for one in November, if your Dem congressman votes for SOPA. Will you do that?

    Likewise, my conservative friends: will you vote for a "Demoncrat" if your beloved Repub congresscreature votes for SOPA?

    If the answer to either question is, "no" (or even just a little hesitation), you have only yourself to blame. That's the bottom line.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by alphatel ( 1450715 ) *
      Health Care was created to give everyone access to something they couldn't afford. SOPA is created to give corporations access to putting you in jail.

      Yes, both are examples of government over-reaching, but one attempts to serve the public trust (quite imperfectly) while the other serves to enforce fascism on the US and the world at large.
      • by Svartalf ( 2997 )

        Heh... You're mistaken on the Health Care bill. It was created to mandate that EVERYONE get health insurance, tax you if you don't (and jail you if you don't pay it...), introduce a vast number of regulations on things you clearly didn't know about in a vain attempt to "fund" the initiative, and a vast array of regulations that quite simply moved the price UP so that more couldn't afford it. You have SOPA right. Simply put, they up-sold the lie in the case of "ObamaCare" and aren't even trying in the ca

      • > Health Care was created to give everyone access ...

        You're missing the point. The point was, the American people DID NOT WANT IT. Whether it's a marvelous idea or the most heinous thing ever inflicted on the electorate is something that we can debate until we're blue-faced.

        But DO NOT say, "if our congress creatures vote for SOPA against the will of the people, then they deserve to be un-elected," then turn right around and say, "but those who voted for healthcare, against the clear will of their constit

    • by fightinfilipino ( 1449273 ) on Saturday January 07, 2012 @01:14PM (#38622508) Homepage

      i will not vote for a Republican ever because they support so many other violations of personal liberty (same sex relationships, racism, discrimination against the impoverished) that it's ridiculous.

      that being said, i'm taking a long, hard look at independents now.

  • by adamchou ( 993073 ) on Saturday January 07, 2012 @12:26PM (#38622038)
    the internet community just decided to violate SOPA and PIPA. they would be taken to court and if the general populace is strongly opposed enough to the legislation, the jury could nullify the legislation? would that be enough to overturn the new laws? or is that just wishful dreaming?
  • by walterbyrd ( 182728 ) on Saturday January 07, 2012 @12:44PM (#38622212)

    SOPA sure seems unconstitutional to me.

  • by koan ( 80826 ) on Saturday January 07, 2012 @01:06PM (#38622430)

    Go to [] and take a look at your state,
    Here's California
    Dianne Feinstein
            * $1,298,218 from big media
            * $796,581 from pro-PIPA groups
            * $244,700 from anti-PIPA groups
    Barbara Boxer
            * $2,522,816 from big media
            * $1,647,015 from pro-PIPA groups
            * $1,144,820 from anti-PIPA groups
    Here's New York
    Chuck Schumer
            * $1,465,160 from big media
            * $1,191,700 from pro-PIPA groups
            * $323,475 from anti-PIPA groups
    Kirsten Gillibrand
            * $747,991 from big media
            * $1,682,667 from pro-PIPA groups
            * $882,986 from anti-PIPA groups

    Oh yeah it's getting passed,

  • by roman_mir ( 125474 ) on Saturday January 07, 2012 @01:12PM (#38622492) Homepage Journal

    By the way, MSM LOVE SOPA [].

    Pick your favorite: MSNBC, FOÐ¥, CBS, ABC, NBC - they don't talk about it, they only call Ron Paul a 'kook', while Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate in the elections who is talking about actual issues (and I mean he is the only candidate, regardless of the 'party' denomination), be it the Patriot Act, NDAA with the indefinite detention of civilians by military based on POTUS's request provision (so think concentration camps not just for funny looking foreigners, but for your own citizens).

    CNN devoted an evening to mentioning SOPA.

    Judge Napolitano [] on Fox Business talks about it often.

    But that's it. Where do you think the MSMs of the world stand on the entire Internet idea? They fucking HATE IT. They can't control it, it cuts into their BULLSHIT that they are spewing and it cuts into their bottom line as few people are watching.

    The only reason for SOPA not to pass is because of-course there is a lot of money on the other side of it as well, but even given Google, Yahoo, Facebook, whatever Internet company/provider/content provider, eventually in USA laws like SOPA and PIPA (and maybe these very laws) will pass, it's not a matter of 'if', it's just the question of 'when', and the 'when' will hit hard IF something happens and Ron Paul becomes too popular all of a sudden during these elections going further on and even if he doesn't win (which is most likely), to prevent anybody like that from competing with the establishment power in the future, the government will see that it is necessary to prevent people from being able to do their own 'congress' on line and to prevent any rise of popular candidates that will take the country on the course of liberty, they will build in every possible thing into the system to shut down the Internet and throw whoever they see as dangerous into their newfangled military ran concentration camps, and deny them any rights (the real name of NDAA that passed should be "Repeal the 4th Amendment Act").

    • they only call Ron Paul a 'kook'

      To be fair, he is a bit of a kook. Please let me explain with an example. Ron Paul believes that private businesses should be able to discriminate in who they serve and who they hire, and that government should not interfere.

      I agree this is technically true from a Constitutional standpoint, and I would support a nation with these ideals.

      The difficult part is that our current culture holds that "all men are created equal" surpasses individual liberty when people interact. T

  • by Tom ( 822 ) on Saturday January 07, 2012 @02:41PM (#38623294) Homepage Journal

    Yeah, I'm actually hoping it will pass.

    Every once in a while, the people need a wake-up call. Yours is long overdue. This might be it. So here is what I think would be the best-case chain of events:

    * SOPA gets passed
    * all the large Internet sites (Google, Facebook, Twitter, ebay, Amazon, etc. etc.) do as they threatened and shut down for at least a few days
    * massive outrage ensues
    * said Internet sites have the advantage of direct communication and explain to the people just what just happened, in terms they understand
    * massive outrage is directed against every representative who voted for SOPA
    * the entire corrupt establishment gets kicked out and replaced by other people, who will last the country a century or so before they turn into the next corrupt establishment that needs kicking out.

    This is the change that everyone voted for when they voted for Obama, isn't it?

  • by DMUTPeregrine ( 612791 ) on Saturday January 07, 2012 @02:47PM (#38623380) Journal
    "I worry about my child and the Internet all the time, even though she's too young to have logged on yet. Here's what I worry about. I worry that 10 or 15 years from now, she will come to me and say 'Daddy, where were you when they took freedom of the press away from the Internet?'" --Mike Godwin, Electronic Frontier Foundation

"Let every man teach his son, teach his daughter, that labor is honorable." -- Robert G. Ingersoll