Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/stand-together-the-gaming-community-vs-sopa-and-pipa

Says it all really, I'm all for it.

Signed petition. I am going to stay away from discussion today though. Thanks for the link.

http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/lamar-smith-sopa-copyright-whoops
Pointing out how moronic the writer of this bill is must be anti-sopa action right?

Having read the bill in question, here is a scenerio that would be possible if SOPA passes: Hasbro could take WoW and similar games OFFLINE.
How? Hasbro owns Wizards of the Coast, which in turn owns D&D, including all copyrights and such of the original. Included in this is a description and depiction of the now classical "Fantasy Dwarf". Hasbro would be able to claim that every other "Fantasy Dwarf" that is similar in appearance and character is an infringement of their copyright and Intellectual Property, and that such depictions create confusion with their "product" thus causing them a finacial hardship... This is all the "evidence" that is required... and ANY offending webcontent can be forced to shut down, including Blizzard's dedicated WoW servers.
This is just one of the scenerios that COULD happen... The bill says "Web Site" not "url" or "web page", but "web site".
Some company takes offense at their "IP" being on a Youtube vid... Youtube goes down.
GW takes offense at some site forum for a leaked codex or image... bye bye to any site that has that info.
Disney doesn't apprieciate your "Little Mermaid" themed Slaanesh army pics..... The site you posted them on goes away.

What it doesn't do is stop "foreign persons" from "pirating" the covered content. Because it doesn't apply to them as they are not IN the U.S., thus the term "foreign".

helgrenze wrote:Having read the bill in question, here is a scenerio that would be possible if SOPA passes: Hasbro could take WoW and similar games OFFLINE.
How? Hasbro owns Wizards of the Coast, which in turn owns D&D, including all copyrights and such of the original. Included in this is a description and depiction of the now classical "Fantasy Dwarf". Hasbro would be able to claim that every other "Fantasy Dwarf" that is similar in appearance and character is an infringement of their copyright and Intellectual Property, and that such depictions create confusion with their "product" thus causing them a finacial hardship... This is all the "evidence" that is required... and ANY offending webcontent can be forced to shut down, including Blizzard's dedicated WoW servers.
This is just one of the scenerios that COULD happen... The bill says "Web Site" not "url" or "web page", but "web site".
Some company takes offense at their "IP" being on a Youtube vid... Youtube goes down.
GW takes offense at some site forum for a leaked codex or image... bye bye to any site that has that info.
Disney doesn't apprieciate your "Little Mermaid" themed Slaanesh army pics..... The site you posted them on goes away.

What it doesn't do is stop "foreign persons" from "pirating" the covered content. Because it doesn't apply to them as they are not IN the U.S., thus the term "foreign".

Yeah, it would pretty much screw everything, except the ones who they try to screw over. Besides, you really think people won't find a way around this?

helgrenze wrote:Having read the bill in question, here is a scenerio that would be possible if SOPA passes: Hasbro could take WoW and similar games OFFLINE.

I'm looking at the text of the bill now, what section allows Hasbro to take down a WoW server for copyright infringement?

If this isn't the correct text of the bill you're referring to, let me know.

purplefood wrote:http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/lamar-smith-sopa-copyright-whoops
Pointing out how moronic the writer of this bill is must be anti-sopa action right?

Somebody pointed out that the author of the bill had a background image that he used on his website that he didn't have the rights to. So he created copyright infringement himself. Go figure...

helgrenze wrote:Having read the bill in question, here is a scenerio that would be possible if SOPA passes: Hasbro could take WoW and similar games OFFLINE.
How? Hasbro owns Wizards of the Coast, which in turn owns D&D, including all copyrights and such of the original. Included in this is a description and depiction of the now classical "Fantasy Dwarf". Hasbro would be able to claim that every other "Fantasy Dwarf" that is similar in appearance and character is an infringement of their copyright and Intellectual Property, and that such depictions create confusion with their "product" thus causing them a finacial hardship... This is all the "evidence" that is required... and ANY offending webcontent can be forced to shut down, including Blizzard's dedicated WoW servers.
This is just one of the scenerios that COULD happen... The bill says "Web Site" not "url" or "web page", but "web site".
Some company takes offense at their "IP" being on a Youtube vid... Youtube goes down.
GW takes offense at some site forum for a leaked codex or image... bye bye to any site that has that info.
Disney doesn't apprieciate your "Little Mermaid" themed Slaanesh army pics..... The site you posted them on goes away.

What it doesn't do is stop "foreign persons" from "pirating" the covered content. Because it doesn't apply to them as they are not IN the U.S., thus the term "foreign".

Yeah, that's totally *NOT* what SOPA can do.

SOPA/PIPA won't actually solve anything. Say you visit places like pirate bay... SOPA/PIPA will prevent you from typing the url into your browser, but will not prevent you from visiting the website via it's IP address (IP as in Internet Protocol, not Intellectual Property ). So already the pirates can bypass the SOPA/PIPA firewall. This also makes it a major pain in the arse from starting up business, etc... If you offer a product that might infringe on someone's IP, you can get shut down. You also have to deal with being compliant to the Acts.

Also, emailed and called my Senator/House Representative, both of whom support these acts... wtf guys, wtf...

Alfndrate wrote:SOPA/PIPA won't actually solve anything. Say you visit places like pirate bay... SOPA/PIPA will prevent you from typing the url into your browser, but will not prevent you from visiting the website via it's IP address (IP as in Internet Protocol, not Intellectual Property ). So already the pirates can bypass the SOPA/PIPA firewall.

The US only has jurisdiction within its borders and ICANN is within its borders. So they can stop registrations, but they can't stop someone operating a website outside of the country.

The rest of your post is wrong.
edit: well, probably not the part about you emailing and calling your Sen. and Rep.

Just because the websites and their owners are not in the US is the exact reason WHY this bill is being voted on. Say you run biccat.ru, a russian website that streams videos every day of the week. Because you don't own the copyright to those videos, nor have you paid for the rights to those videos (ala Netflix, etc...), you're breaking US law. Now Russia might be a little bit more lenient with their laws, allowing you do legally do this (or at least not caring what you're doing). SOPA/PIPA would prevent anyone with a US IP address from visiting your website.

And as anyone that knows about the Pirate Bay's history, you might know they already operate outside of this country, which is something SOPA/PIPA would stop.


I'll catch up on this thread in an hour or so, but now I have class.

Alf has it spot on. This bill is written as to either make it so foreign websites can be held accountable in US courts, or will block use of those sites. The other provision is that sites dedicated to piracy (have no other significant use) can be blocked.

The sky is falling!!!

The UK has also agreed this month to ship one of their citizens over to the US to face trial for violating US copyright law.

Yeah, because Europe for reasons unknown to me keeps playing America's lapdog.

helgrenze wrote:Having read the bill in question, here is a scenerio that would be possible if SOPA passes: Hasbro could take WoW and similar games OFFLINE.
How? Hasbro owns Wizards of the Coast, which in turn owns D&D, including all copyrights and such of the original. Included in this is a description and depiction of the now classical "Fantasy Dwarf". Hasbro would be able to claim that every other "Fantasy Dwarf" that is similar in appearance and character is an infringement of their copyright and Intellectual Property, and that such depictions create confusion with their "product" thus causing them a finacial hardship... This is all the "evidence" that is required... and ANY offending webcontent can be forced to shut down, including Blizzard's dedicated WoW servers.

Rubbish.

D&D owns nothing, ask them, ring them up and ask them to enforce their 'IP' regarding that fantasy Dwarf. They haven't got a leg to stand on, maybe if the Tolkien estate got uppity, but even then there are myths and legends that you can say you have based things on. A few changes and its no longer the typical 'fantasy Dwarf' Blizzard would counter challenge that their fantasy Dwarf was their own and both would blow thousands in legal fees for nothing.

I spoke to the TSR legal department in 1994 if I could use the term Drow in a novel I working on, and was told by them, it wouldn't be worth their time trying to challenge me, unless I was literally coping all their lore and background at the same time. The idea of them trying to defend a black skinned elf, or the name Drow was basically laughable, due to creatures that exist in myth that they based their ideas on.

In the end I renamed them anyways, as I didn't want the connection with 'Drow' but that was a interesting call, and quite funny that I was able to get through to their legal department and have said chat.

Alfndrate wrote:Just because the websites and their owners are not in the US is the exact reason WHY this bill is being voted on. Say you run biccat.ru, a russian website that streams videos every day of the week. Because you don't own the copyright to those videos, nor have you paid for the rights to those videos (ala Netflix, etc...), you're breaking US law. Now Russia might be a little bit more lenient with their laws, allowing you do legally do this (or at least not caring what you're doing). SOPA/PIPA would prevent anyone with a US IP address from visiting your website.

No, SOPA would not prevent anyone with a US IP address from visiting biccat.ru. It would simply de-register biccat.ru.

It would take a court action to prevent someone with a US IP address from visiting biccat.ru.

But really, if I'm operating in Russia, have no plans to visit the United States, and am hosted in Russia, there's nothing the US could do to me.

Requires online service providers, Internet search engines, payment network providers, and Internet advertising services, upon receiving a copy of a court order relating to an AG action, to carry out certain preventative measures including withholding services from an infringing site or preventing users located in the United States from accessing the infringing site. Requires payment network providers and Internet advertising services, upon receiving a copy of such an order relating to a right holder's action, to carry out similar preventative measures.

How is the above quote from the committee that looked into this bill not preventing me from visiting that website as a US citizen? The Attorney General calls up AT&T and says "yo dog, you need to prevent Alfndrate from visiting biccat.ru because he's allowing people to view The Hangover Part 2 for free." ATT&T says, "Okay, got it!"

The problem is that if biccat.ru's IP address is 123.45.6.7 then I could still access your website, even with SOPA being enforced, and the AG telling my ISP that your site is infringing on someone's work.

And like I've stated in the text you've quoted, it doesn't matter if your website is in the US or not. The entire point of SOPA/PIPA is to prevent people in the US from accessing sites that either link to piracy, or encourage piracy... (even though their way of preventing that is flawed).

Alfndrate wrote:

Requires online service providers, Internet search engines, payment network providers, and Internet advertising services, upon receiving a copy of a court order relating to an AG action, to carry out certain preventative measures including withholding services from an infringing site or preventing users located in the United States from accessing the infringing site. Requires payment network providers and Internet advertising services, upon receiving a copy of such an order relating to a right holder's action, to carry out similar preventative measures.

How is the above quote from the committee that looked into this bill not preventing me from visiting that website as a US citizen? The Attorney General calls up AT&T and says "yo dog, you need to prevent Alfndrate from visiting biccat.ru because he's allowing people to view The Hangover Part 2 for free." ATT&T says, "Okay, got it!"

The problem is that if biccat.ru's IP address is 123.45.6.7 then I could still access your website, even with SOPA being enforced, and the AG telling my ISP that your site is infringing on someone's work.

And like I've stated in the text you've quoted, it doesn't matter if your website is in the US or not. The entire point of SOPA/PIPA is to prevent people in the US from accessing sites that either link to piracy, or encourage piracy... (even though their way of preventing that is flawed).

This is the way i understand it...

After reading Biccat's comment in the OT thread (Wikipedia down, etc...). He was either a) just messing with my lack of specificity, or b) assumed that I didn't realize a court order by the attorney general would be needed.

Sadly, there is the small issue of the fact that these giant industries that have been trying to crack down are being given the power to "cry wolf" and get the AG to send out orders...

Though the orders are still at the discretion of the AG, but let's be honest... who doesn't want to be the friend of people with lots of money?

Considering that for a previous attorney general we've had Alberto Gonzales, you shouldn't be surprised at how few people trust the AG position.

Poor E3.

Just stood back up after getting beaten, only for this to happen.....

Also, why didn't Extra Creditz man use his Extra Creditz Voice

Slarg232 wrote:Poor E3.

Just stood back up after getting beaten, only for this to happen.....

Also, why didn't Extra Creditz man use his Extra Creditz Voice

In fairness they're offering to come back if they change their stance...
Which seems acceptable...
Doesn't the extra credits man write extra credits not voice it?

purplefood wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:Poor E3.

Just stood back up after getting beaten, only for this to happen.....

Also, why didn't Extra Creditz man use his Extra Creditz Voice

In fairness they're offering to come back if they change their stance...
Which seems acceptable...
Doesn't the extra credits man write extra credits not voice it?

They had two EC dudes in there; the one with the Goatee was the writer, the brown one that looked like Peter Parker was the voice actor.

Melissia wrote:Considering that for a previous attorney general we've had Alberto Gonzales, you shouldn't be surprised at how few people trust the AG position.

Considering our current AG, you shouldn't be surprised...yadda yadda yadda.

Remember, the domain name seizures (which I think pose a much bigger problem of overreach by the government) occurred under Holder, not Gonzales.

Alfndrate wrote:After reading Biccat's comment in the OT thread (Wikipedia down, etc...). He was either a) just messing with my lack of specificity, or b) assumed that I didn't realize a court order by the attorney general would be needed.

Sadly, there is the small issue of the fact that these giant industries that have been trying to crack down are being given the power to "cry wolf" and get the AG to send out orders...

Though the orders are still at the discretion of the AG, but let's be honest... who doesn't want to be the friend of people with lots of money?

As to (a), I replied to your post based on the information you provided. If you weren't sufficiently specific, that's not my problem.

I do agree that the provision granting authority to limit ISPs is a problem. But only because these parties aren't part of the case and the AG shouldn't have authority over them. I'm not sure how this could be resolved, either from a technological or legal perspective.

As for (b), yes, the AG needs a court order. They also need to notify the site owner (through it's registration) of any action.

But there's nothing in this act that gives "these giant industries" power over the AG. In fact, it gives private companies some level of private enforcement. This is, IMO, a good thing.

Slarg232 wrote:

purplefood wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:Poor E3.

Just stood back up after getting beaten, only for this to happen.....

Also, why didn't Extra Creditz man use his Extra Creditz Voice

In fairness they're offering to come back if they change their stance...
Which seems acceptable...
Doesn't the extra credits man write extra credits not voice it?

They had two EC dudes in there; the one with the Goatee was the writer, the brown one that looked like Peter Parker was the voice actor.

Ah right...
I did wonder why they repeated it so much...

Frankly I'd rather keep this discussion limited to one thread. Dunno.