×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

SOPA and PIPA So Far

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the getting-the-scoop dept.

United States 273

Since their inception SOPA and PIPA have raised concerns about blacklisting from online freedom advocates, and tech industry giants. Law professors worry that they could stifle growth and innovation. Other's have warned that the legislation would hurt scientific debate and open discourse on the internet. SOPA and PIPA are not without support however. In fact a wide variety of companies have backed the proposed laws, bringing together an eclectic group. After months of debate, the removal of one of the more controversial provisions, and The White House expressing its own concerns over the law in its current form, Representative Eric Cantor (R-VA) announced that he was shelving SOPA. PIPA however remains, and it is likely that a re-worked version of the House bill will be brought up soon.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

273 comments

About fucking time (5, Insightful)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 2 years ago | (#38737200)

Finally, slashdot chimes in on SOPA...

Re:About fucking time (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38737294)

You're joking right? There's been a SOPA story on Slashdot atleast twice a week for the last few months..

Re:About fucking time (4, Insightful)

niktemadur (793971) | more than 2 years ago | (#38737388)

Parent is obviously referring to the blackout in progress. Today is a day of civil action.

Re:About fucking time (2)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 2 years ago | (#38738194)

It'll be interesting to see if the soap box approach actually works.

And what consequences that will have on the next cause/election/idiot in office.

Not exactly.... (4, Insightful)

RobinEggs (1453925) | more than 2 years ago | (#38737394)

You're joking right? There's been a SOPA story on Slashdot atleast twice a week for the last few months..

Yeah, and I believe all from the readers. Slashdot has editors, paid staffers who ultimately decide what's posted (regardless of what the firehose says is the topmost story); there's no good reason they can't write an actual editorial or stage a protest when situations call for it.

Slashdot didn't participate in the blackout, and after multiple comments and submissions, including mine, criticizing them for being spineless punks...we get a massive pile of links spelling out a bald summary of the story so far. No opinion, no support for a cause in which they have a vested constitutional interest, nothing.

Either users submit the content and run the site, or the editor's actually have a purpose and they should show some balls. This awkward middle-ground where they never have an opinion and almost never come up with content - yet still hold final control over what stories go up and reword or cut down the summaries as they see fit - sometimes looks pretty pathetic. This is one of those times.

Re:Not exactly.... (5, Interesting)

Talderas (1212466) | more than 2 years ago | (#38737468)

Slashdot doesn't need to participate in the blackout. The purpose of the blackout is to inform people about SOPA. The majority of Slashdot readers are already well informed about it so the only purpose of a blackout on Slashdot is to create a nuisance for the readers.

Missing the point AND arrogant. Nice twofer. (5, Insightful)

RobinEggs (1453925) | more than 2 years ago | (#38737846)

And Fark, Reddit, and Wired are for digital neophytes who aren't well informed about the topic? Because they all participated to some degree, and if it's only a 'nuisance' for a place with informed readers to participate in a protest then the readers of those websites are either much stupider than ours or their editors much dumber than ours...

The point of the damn protests is to point out how inconvenient and destructive it would be for your favorite sites to disappear without notice thanks to the instant, warrantless takedowns that SOPA would enable. Leaving a major tech news site on-line, where all of their users can bitch and speculate about the protests rather than experience being cut off, actually kinda blunts the effectiveness.

Just because we get it in theory doesn't mean there's no value in solidarity or that it wouldn't be good for us to experience it firsthand for a frickin day as further impetus to prevent a future where we could experience it for a lifetime.

And ultimately, slashdot isn't that important.

Re:Not exactly.... (4, Insightful)

Canazza (1428553) | more than 2 years ago | (#38737514)

What would blacking out slashdot actually do?
Closing Wikipedia and Google actually affects the normal person, and indeed, Wikipedia is the most cited example in the news. This is pretty much the first and only time BBC News has actually picked up on SOPA since it's inception, and same with murdoch-owned Sky News.
Blacking out /. wouldn't have that effect, and since it's a Tech News Aggregator it's a good place to read roundups like the one posted in this fucking article. Yes it would be affected by SOPA/PIPA tremendously, but, like Twitter, I can see it doing much more in spreading the word by remaining open and reporting on others actions, than blacking out themselves.

Re:Not exactly.... (5, Insightful)

DrXym (126579) | more than 2 years ago | (#38737884)

What would blacking out slashdot actually do?

It might demonstrate the future for Slashdot if the legislation passes. Only just yesterday someone posted the full text to some MLK speech which was supposedly under copyright. I don't know if it was or not, only that it could have been and SOPA could have been used to shut the site down until it was removed. Imagine the hassle for mods, editors of dealing with trolls deliberately cutting and pasting links or text from various copyright sources because now Slashdot has a legal responsibility to clean itself up.

Sites like Slashdot really should be in the front lines because its in their own self interest that this law does not pass in its current form.

Re:Not exactly.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38737926)

What would blacking out slashdot actually do?

A day of working SlashCode?

Re:Not exactly.... (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 2 years ago | (#38737580)

Might want to check this recently posted story [slashdot.org]

In your defence, it is mere minutes between the posting of that story and your comment, so you could be forgiven for writing this while /. editors posted that. Either way, you should probably say "Shucks, sorry guys."

Re:About fucking time (5, Insightful)

niktemadur (793971) | more than 2 years ago | (#38737374)

My thoughts exactly, I came in here a couple of hours ago expecting some SOPA/PIPA acknowledgement, was truly puzzled by the chirping crickets.
Also but less shocking, the lack of a banner on the issue raises the question: Is Slashdot management neutral, apolitical, or something a little more insidious?
I'm guessing apolitical, by which I mean, management keeping their opinions to themselves and allowing the users to fire the cannons from all sides, with no interference.

SOPA not dead (5, Informative)

Vicarius (1093097) | more than 2 years ago | (#38737206)

as of yesterday SOPA was resurrected in the House [house.gov]

Re:SOPA not dead (4, Interesting)

Vanderhoth (1582661) | more than 2 years ago | (#38737234)

Looks like they were trying to pull a fast one by claiming the bill was dead, then hoping no one noticed the zombie chewing on their leg.

Re:SOPA not dead (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38737650)

Exactly who claimed it was dead?

Re:SOPA not dead (2, Funny)

DriedClexler (814907) | more than 2 years ago | (#38738272)

They were also pandering to the Christian base that supports Resurrection ... and a certain zombie.

Re:SOPA not dead (5, Insightful)

nirgle (554262) | more than 2 years ago | (#38737282)

Of course it was. The initial "shelving" of the bill was a last ditch attempt to stop January 18th, so it could continue to be passed quietly. When tech giants of the internet decided to run their message anyway... well, no point in keeping up illusions anymore, might as well actively pass it.

Whoo! Ten Points! (5, Insightful)

RobinEggs (1453925) | more than 2 years ago | (#38737658)

I actually expected that, and warned of it in my own submission this morning. I think some people don't fully understand what 'tabled' means.

Eric Cantor is Speaker of the House, and he's the one who 'tabled' SOPA yesterday, according to the stories we've been reading. The Speaker controls the House by controlling the schedule. He decides what gets floor time, and if he refuses to schedule something for a vote it can't become law.

No bill is actually dead, however, until the legislative year is over. If a bill "died in committee", the committee could consider a new draft or change their minds outright; if it died because the Speaker wouldn't schedule it, he could come into work the very next day and say: "Hey, that thing I said we wouldn't vote on until my mother-in-law gave me a blowjob in the back seat of my Mercedes? Well, granny puckered up last night and it was reeaal nice, so everyone pick up your clickers and put in the old yay-or-nay on this bill!"

So when he supposedly shelved SOPA yesterday Cantor wasn't making some sort of vow or invoking a rule that destroyed the bill: congresspeople could still talk about it, continue to work on it, and continue rounding up votes for or against it. Apparently they did. He was still free to change his mind, and apparently he did. So at the moment it's been re-scheduled yet again for markup.

If you don't like a bit of legislation, do not rest until the session is over. That's the only time you can be sure that particular bill won't go through.

And when I say that particular bill I mean it specifically: it happens frequently that the same proposed law, sometimes word-for-word, comes up year after year after year, in bill after bill, until it finally gets through. It happened when North Carolina effectively banned municipal broadband this year; that was the third try for that one. There could be a second, third, fourth and fifth try for SOPA until Hollywood gets what they want. Pay attention and be vigilant. Their lawyers don't sleep, and neither can you if you want a free internet.

Re:Whoo! Ten Points! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38737836)

Congress should have a publicly-visible procedure to kill a bill, even if it's just so they can save face. It's surprising that the bureaucracy hasn't imploded under its own weight.

Re:Whoo! Ten Points! (4, Informative)

Nixoloco (675549) | more than 2 years ago | (#38738062)

Eric Cantor is Speaker of the House, and he's the one who 'tabled' SOPA yesterday, according to the stories we've been reading. The Speaker controls the House by controlling the schedule. He decides what gets floor time, and if he refuses to schedule something for a vote it can't become law.

Small correction, Eric Cantor is House Majority Leader. The current speaker of the house is John Boehner.

Re:Whoo! Ten Points! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38738184)

Eric Cantor is Speaker of the House, and he's the one who 'tabled' SOPA yesterday, according to the stories we've been reading. The Speaker controls the House by controlling the schedule. He decides what gets floor time, and if he refuses to schedule something for a vote it can't become law.

Small correction, Eric Cantor is House Majority Leader. The current speaker of the house is John Boehner.

Well crap, that's embarrassing. I knew something felt off; I actually went to the guy's website trying to figure out why I was so unfamiliar with him and why I hadn't heard when he became the speaker. And I still got it wrong. That's what happens when you've been awake for 29 hours.

Anyway, I'm glad you were kind enough to call it a 'small' correction; I do think the basic point stands, and that Boehner would effectively cooperate with Cantor on the scheduling part.

Re:SOPA not dead (1)

jamstar7 (694492) | more than 2 years ago | (#38737716)

Obviously, this bill got zombified due to the lack of confirmation from Netcraft. Damn that blackout!!

Re:SOPA not dead (1)

tguyton (1001081) | more than 2 years ago | (#38737986)

Wow, thanks very much for sharing that. I suppose I shouldn't be, but I'm really surprised that hasn't been more widely reported. What dirtbags.

Screenshots (5, Interesting)

nirgle (554262) | more than 2 years ago | (#38737208)

I am collecting screenshots of blacked-out sites today so we can have them all in one place. If you know of any other sites, please email them to me.

https://plus.google.com/u/0/photos/117902136861919925087/albums/5698963233208682849 [google.com]

Re:Screenshots (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38737238)

Reddit.com is blacked out.

Re:Screenshots (5, Funny)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#38737264)

Be careful those blacked out screen shots could be Copy-written, That link you just put in doomed Slashdot.

Re:Screenshots (3, Informative)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#38737286)

Geekculture.com is blacked out too. Their version is fairly cool.

Re:Screenshots (2)

markhb (11721) | more than 2 years ago | (#38737574)

Ubersoft.net is blacked out as well, although theirs isn't actually black.

Incidentally, while Geekculture.com and Joy of Tech are blacked out, the After-Y2K [geekculture.com] page (some of us still dream) isn't.

Re:Screenshots (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38737288)

http://imgur.com/ - an image hosting site that is used heavily by Reddit users has joined in.

Re:Screenshots (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38737326)

demonoid.me

Re:Screenshots (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38737446)

Qwantz (Dinosaur Comics): http://www.qwantz.com/index.php?comic=2124

Pfft...blacked out? (3, Insightful)

coogan (850562) | more than 2 years ago | (#38737666)

I see Facebook and Google made a MASSIVE effort to change to their homepages and educate people - especially in non US locations. Talk about a half baked attempt at a protest. Props to Reddit, Wikipedia, Wired et al. who actually went through with it - worldwide!

Re:Screenshots (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38737756)

I don't trust you with my e-mail address but a Transformers fan site I frequent is joining in on the blackout. www.seibertron.com

Re:Screenshots (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 2 years ago | (#38738266)

Here are some blacked-out webcomics:

Incidentally, half of these I hadn't even heard of before today; I only know of them now because they chose to protest SOPA! Also, Penny Arcade [penny-arcade.com] isn't blacked out but has an anti-SOPA banner, and XKCD [xkcd.com] hasn't updated yet.

This page has links! Lots of Links! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38738358)

You might be busy verifying and taking shots of all these pages. Very busy.

http://sopastrike.com/#how-to-strike

Why isn't slashdot blacking out? (5, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#38737218)

Why isn't Slashdot blacking out? It is one of those sites that could be greatly effected by this bill. Besides I need to be more productive today. And most of the sites I visit are blacked out too.

Re:Why isn't slashdot blacking out? (4, Insightful)

sheehaje (240093) | more than 2 years ago | (#38737248)

Why isn't Slashdot blacking out? It is one of those sites that could be greatly effected by this bill. Besides I need to be more productive today. And most of the sites I visit are blacked out too.

I'm willing to bet that the majority of those that would be affected by a Slashdot blackout are already against SOPA/PIPA, and already are vocal about it.

Not so with sites like Wikipedia, Google, etc.

Re:Why isn't slashdot blacking out? (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 2 years ago | (#38737454)

The problem is that both google and wikipedia are still working normally (for most people). Wikipedia is only locked, no blackout, no banner. Considering that most people hit wikipedia by using google/bing, not en.wikipedia.org's main page, and that most people use google/bing via a browser search field (or the URL bar) instead of visiting www.google.com first, the small black google logo is the only indication that something's wrong, but they change their logo every day almost, so a lot of people will ignore it.

Re:Why isn't slashdot blacking out? (4, Informative)

markhb (11721) | more than 2 years ago | (#38737614)

If you aren't using script blockers, any page on English Wikipedia will come up and then immediately be replaced by a blacked-out page explaining the protest.

Re:Why isn't slashdot blacking out? (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#38738540)

Doesn't do it at all if you come from outside the US, it seems. France at least. (tested via proxy)

Re:Why isn't slashdot blacking out? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38737828)

True about Google, but any Wikipedia page is blacked out UNLESS you're blocking scripts, which as a Slashdotter, you probably are.

Re:Why isn't slashdot blacking out? (4, Insightful)

DrgnDancer (137700) | more than 2 years ago | (#38737352)

Personal Opinion: for sites like Slashdot, the FSF, the EEF, etc, it makes more sense to dedicate a lot of space to discussing the issue on their front pages than to black-out. Most, if not all, people going to these sites are aware of the issue. The blackouts are an awareness raiser, for sites where everyone is already aware, news and information are a more effective form of protest.

Re:Why isn't slashdot blacking out? (4, Insightful)

limaxray (1292094) | more than 2 years ago | (#38737988)

Exactly. The real question is why isn't Facebook in blackout, or at the very least have a banner at the top of the page noting the issue. I'm really happy about Wikipedia since it is frequently used by the 'unwashed masses' but think Facebook would reach an even wider audience.

Re:Why isn't slashdot blacking out? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38738198)

Yeah, but if SOPA was active, then what you'd have is internet black out without any place to discuss or raise awareness. So, I think every site, no exception should be doing the same.

Re:Why isn't slashdot blacking out? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38737984)

Cuz it can be defeated using adblock?

Re:Why isn't slashdot blacking out? (1)

gajop (1285284) | more than 2 years ago | (#38738230)

Well, we routinely blackout a smaller site of choice, just post an article about it.

Incomplete article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38737242)

How come the article fails to mention that 2 large sites (Wikipedia & Reddit) are both inaccessible today in protest against these laws? This is an important fact and will probably have quite an impact on the public (although maybe not exactly the one intended...)

Also, SOPA wasn't cancelled, just delayed!

Re:Incomplete article (0)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 2 years ago | (#38737522)

How come the article fails to mention that 2 lrge sites (Wikipedia & Reddit) are both inaccessible today in protest against these laws?

Because Wikipedia isn't down. Search for something and you'll find it, without even seeing any banner or mention of SOPA/PIPA. And who visits Reddit?

Re:Incomplete article (1)

Bengie (1121981) | more than 2 years ago | (#38737646)

Wiki gives me a black SOPA page(people are saying noscript fixes this) and Reddit serves 2bil+ pages per month. ./ is only 40mil/month

Re:Incomplete article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38737786)

Yes I have just confirmed -- wasn't seeing the wikipedia blackout due to running noscript.

(Note, for what it's worth, that most people using noscript habitually are probably in the "already well aware" set anyway...)

Re:Incomplete article (1)

Given M. Sur (870067) | more than 2 years ago | (#38737704)

I'm getting the blackout page for any link to Wikipedia, except for links to the articles on SOPA and PIPA.

Re:Incomplete article (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 2 years ago | (#38737706)

Because Wikipedia isn't down. Search for something and you'll find it, without even seeing any banner or mention of SOPA/PIPA. And who visits Reddit?

Umm, no.

I was surprised to see this, so I did a quick test. Googled "Walt Whitman", first option offered was wikipedia.

Clicked on the link, saw Walt Whitman entry for a second or three, then it was replaced with wikipeida's blackout page, which bitches about SOPA and offers you a lookup for your congresscritter, in case you feel the urge to contact him/her/it.

Re:Incomplete article (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 2 years ago | (#38738034)

Ah yes, I see it in konqueror or in FF if I allow wikimedia.org to run JS. I guess the folks that I set up noscript for will have to be manually informed.

Can you really trust congress to do what's right? (4, Insightful)

Reverand Dave (1959652) | more than 2 years ago | (#38737268)

I mean seriously. There is a real reason why congress is less popular than things like Paris Hilton and Nixon [inquisitr.com]. These guys are so far into the pockets of big business that they don't even have a minor inkling of what is best for the majority of America.

Re:Can you really trust congress to do what's righ (4, Interesting)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 2 years ago | (#38737422)

There is a real reason why congress is less popular than things like Paris Hilton and Nixon.

Could've fooled me. I mean, with a 95% reelection rate, I would say they're a pretty popular bunch

Re:Can you really trust congress to do what's righ (5, Insightful)

stewbee (1019450) | more than 2 years ago | (#38737496)

That's because every other congressman sucks, but mine. It's those other assholes that are bringing it down. /sarcasm

Re:Can you really trust congress to do what's righ (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38737948)

Of course, if you lived in the 14th district of Texas [ronpaul2012.com], that would actually be true.

Re:Can you really trust congress to do what's righ (1)

Reverand Dave (1959652) | more than 2 years ago | (#38738442)

Nah, My congressman blows as well. I've only ever voted for one person that got elected in my state and he only lasted on term. Stupid Red States.

Re:Can you really trust congress to do what's righ (1)

Bengie (1121981) | more than 2 years ago | (#38738100)

No one else to vote in. They come in based on default.

The problem is our system determines the winner based on the most votes. If you got 1 vote and everyone else got 0, you win! Still doesn't mean the majority wants you in.

Why? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38737278)

Why is slashdot still accessible?

[censored] (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38737300)

[This comment was flagged for linking to copyright-sensitive content]

Revolution (5, Interesting)

FranktehReaver (2441748) | more than 2 years ago | (#38737324)

"Every 200 years there needs to be a revolution" - Thomas Jefferson

Came to mind when reading this...

Re:Revolution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38737904)

We're 35 1/2 years overdue.

Re:Revolution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38738142)

Well, you know, we all want to change the world.

If SOPA/PIPA dies... (5, Insightful)

Eldragon (163969) | more than 2 years ago | (#38737334)

If SOPA/PIPA dies in Congress, it is not because the people rose up to oppose the terrible legislation. It will die because enough corporations spoke up opposing it to outnumber the supporters.

Wikipedia Workaround (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38737340)

I accidentally discovered that if you disable JavaScript on Wikipedia, you don't get the blackout notice. You can browse just like normal.

Re:Wikipedia Workaround (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38737478)

I, on the other hand, discovered this by reading their official explanation.

Re:Wikipedia Workaround (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38737568)

Excuse me, I happen to own a patent on a System, Method or Process to Circumvent Javascript-Based Web Service Blocking Systems, which covers the use of a Javascript-blocking program or a program without support for Javacript. Desist from using this method immediately, or I will have no choice but to sue you for damages of up to $100,000,000.

Re:Wikipedia Workaround (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38737656)

Yeah I was disappointed when I went to the site with noscript this morning expecting to see a black out and not seeing it. Other sites did it right by actually blacking out their sites, granted the js is good enough to stop most people but I dont really consider it a true blackout

The White House isn't "expressing" shit (4, Informative)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#38737380)

The Hollywood studios behind these bills are some of Obama's biggest contributors. His "expression of concern" is just a pathetic attempt to play both sides of the fence. He would as soon deliver a State of the Union speech in the nude than to veto one of these bills (or anything similar).

2nd Amendment (4, Interesting)

Tokolosh (1256448) | more than 2 years ago | (#38737528)

This is the 2nd Amendment issue of our age, and like the NRA we need to be eternally vigilant against never-ending attempts to restrict our rights.

Personally, I support the EFF as the equivalent of my NRA.
 

shutdown the entertainment industry (1)

curado (1677466) | more than 2 years ago | (#38737830)

Write your senator and ask them to shut down the entertainment industry. I can't think of a reason not to? Half the stuff I wouldn't watch/listen to if it was free anyway.

It will not die (1, Interesting)

trolman (648780) | more than 2 years ago | (#38737878)

Internet control by the MSM and Hollywood is going to happen. Maybe not this year. There will be a '9/11' like event or some other method but it will happen. Give it up geeks.

Haven't noticed anything (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38737972)

I haven't noticed anything yet.

Do something. (3, Insightful)

RMingin (985478) | more than 2 years ago | (#38737992)

Sent to Robert P. Casey, JR, Senator (D) from Pennsylvania:

"Big media may pay your bills, but your constituents elect you, sir. SOPA/PIPA does EVERYTHING for them and NOTHING for us. You should be ashamed of yourself for co-sponsoring PIPA. Please withdraw your support, immediately, and publicly."

Why people want to KILL SOPA? (0)

biraneto2 (910162) | more than 2 years ago | (#38738002)

Piracy is a real problem. I find it interesting that people want to kill PIPA and SOPA, and not change it to allow protection against piracy while still allowing people freedom to use the web. I have a game on the Android market. It has sold around 1000 copies... (it cost just 1 dollar so it's not a matter of cost). Some russian guy cracked my game and by looking on download counters I can tell the game was already illegaly downloaded more than 50000 times. The only thing I can currently do is report every link I found to file share sites... I tried that for a week and noticed that I wasn't being able to work anymore... I wasn't doing anything else but sending DMCA notices. Therefore, I find the current law very flawed. I woudn't care if there was some improved SOPA that would deal with file share sites for instance (Let's face it... they are 95% of the time used for piracy anyway)

Corporations lobbying the government (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38738046)

So again, this is corporations lobbying congress against the interests of scientists, educators, and the people in general. When will America learn that we are giving our votes and our money to people who does not have out best interests in mind?

This is very bad. (1)

od05 (915556) | more than 2 years ago | (#38738140)

SOPA would have many unintended consequences.

My specific concern is regarding data centers that utilize shared hosting. Most "Cloud Computing" organizations share IP addresses and DNS server addresses. If they were to block a DNS then not only would the site in question go down, so would all the other sites sharing that host DNS. This is terrible news for anyone who utilizes a colocation data center, as it puts the reliability of your site at risk - even if you aren't doing anything wrong.

Call your senators and representatives and tell them that SOPA is very, very bad. It MUST be stopped.

I called my senator. You should too.

"Law professors worry ..." (1)

Gripp (1969738) | more than 2 years ago | (#38738490)

" *Law professors* worry that they could stifle growth and innovation" - how about everyone who knows anything about, well.... anything? (which obviously excludes the folks on capitol hill)

SOPA will not die even if defeated in congress (5, Insightful)

Muondecay (1841250) | more than 2 years ago | (#38738498)

Even if SOPA/PIPA is defeated in congress in its current iteration, the media industry and its lobbying arm likely aren't going to worry in the least. Why? Because they have an ace in the hole: H.R 1981 - The Protect Children from Internet Pornographers (PCIP) Act of 2011 [govtrack.us]. While still in committee since being introduced last summer, and containing questionable provisions about IP logging, It carries with it the same crew of supporters that are pushing the media industries' SOPA agenda. Chances are quite high that they will simply copy/paste SOPA's text onto it, thus giving it the "protecting children" shield from public scrutiny. Any opposition to it will easily be re-framed to wanting to "protect child pornogrophers". This will likely be the next battle and won't be easily won with blackouts and internet stunts. In fact, I'm not sure the public could handle the level of nuance that would be needed to explain why such a bill is dangerous.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...