Some legislation is necessary. You cannot throw up your hands in the air and say all such bills are bad because they will hurt startups and web development because of excessive necessary policing of material posted by users. Legislation is necessary. I hope this passes. Youtube might die but to live it must follow the rules.

I think this is directed to sites selling fake and copyright materials.

quote:

Originally posted by Sunil:
I think this is directed to sites selling fake and copyright materials.

They want each website owner to police user contributed material. GNI might be shut down!!

quote:

Originally posted by TI:

quote:

Originally posted by Sunil:
I think this is directed to sites selling fake and copyright materials.

They want each website owner to police user contributed material. GNI might be shut down!!

In that case always quote your source when cut and pasting copyright material

Half the people will stop posting

This legislation is necessary. It might not be perfect but copyright material must be protected. Companies and individuals invest millions in copyright and yet they are violated because they have no protection. I will call my politician and tell him to support this legislation. We must protect copyright material.

Copywright material are already protected by law.

quote:

Originally posted by TI:
Copywright material are already protected by law.

It will now be enforced.

I doubt that very much. If someone copies someone song and post on GNI for fun, you saying that Amral is to be arrested?

quote:

According to First Amendment expert Marvin Ammori, a Legal Fellow with the New America Foundation Open Technology Initiative and an Affiliate Scholar at Stanford Law School’s Center for Internet & Society, this provision could be interpreted to require any website that features user-generated content (think Facebook, Reddit, or YouTube) to make sure that no circumvention information has been posted to their site, or risk legal action.

Another provision highly cited by critics is the “vigilante” part of SOPA/PIPA, which allows ISPs to voluntarily block access to certain foreign websites, “in good faith,” if they have “credible evidence” that these sites are devoted to illegally distributing copyrighted material. Both SOPA and PIPA give immunity to ISPs who take voluntary action against websites that are believed — but not proven — to be dedicated towards the illegal distribution of intellectual property. Because of this, critics say the potential to abuse this power is unconscionable.

If SOPA or PIPA became law, would it mean widespread Internet censorship?
Maybe yes, maybe no. For the most part, critics of these bills are basing their arguments on the potential for abuse — a hypothetical worst-case scenario. In other words, if copyright holders and the US government never exploit the powers granted to them in SOPA/PIPA, no innocent website will be affected. In fact, that is the argument of these bills’ supporters; that law-abiding, US-based websites and companies have nothing at all to worry about.

But the critics (which include more than a hundred law experts from places like Stanford and Harvard Law) say that the bills are too broad in their language, making them ripe for abuse. They cite instances in which current copyright laws, like the Digital Millennium Copyrigh Act (DCMA), have been used by companies to silent speech that they find distasteful.

Protecting intellectual property still seems like an important goal. Are there any proposed alternatives to SOPA/PIPA?
Yes, opponents of SOPA/PIPA have introduced the “Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade” or “OPEN Act,” to both the House and the Senate. Rather than give powers of enforcement to the Attorney General, and to copyright holders, OPEN simply expands the Tariff Act of 1930 to allow the International Trade Commission (ITC) to “take action against unfair digital imports or unfair imports that are digitally-facilitated by foreign rogue websites,” instead of being limited to physical goods that violate US intellectual property law. This includes requiring financial institutions (again, like PayPal or Internet advertisers) to sever business ties with sites that are found to be in violation of US copyright law. Supporters of SOPA/PIPA say OPEN will be ineffective, and the bill has so far failed to gain any serious traction in either the House or the Senate.

Why has the focus shifted from SOPA to PIPA?
Because House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) told SOPA opponent Darrell Issa (R-CA) this weekend that SOPA will not come up for a vote until consensus on the bill is achieved. Prior to Rep. Cantor’s assurance that SOPA would not come up for consideration before the House, it appeared likely that the bill — which had broad support in the House — would be voted on, and pass.

Since it is unlikely that anything close to consensus will be achieved anytime soon, the threat of SOPA’s passage in the near future is extremely low. That said, the bill is not completely dead, and could be revived at anytime.

PIPA, on the other hand, is still very much alive. It has already passed through committee hearings — a step further than SOPA ever took. And Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has so far stood firm on bringing PIPA up for a vote before the full Senate on January 24.

Does PIPA have a good chance of becoming law?
Unclear. Currently, the bill still has bipartisan support in the Senate, but it is growing weaker by the day. This past weekend, six Republican senators wrote a letter to Sen. Reid, asking him to postpone a vote on the bill. And the White House issued a statement declaring that it “will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet,” essentially threatening veto of either SOPA or PIPA, if one of these bills managed to make it all the way to President Obama’s desk.

quote:

Originally posted by Sunil:
I think this is directed to sites selling fake and copyright materials.

I doubt it. Look at the other legislation that has been recently passed, such as the National Defense Authorization Act, which permits the US military to indefinitely detain anyone it chooses, for pretty much any reason, without due process. Like Europe in the 1930s, the US is careening toward fascism. Rather than abandon failed economic policies and adopt new ones which would offer hope to an impoverished population, our present leadership, in both parties, is committed to keeping the failed policies, while putting in place police-state measures to control an angry and desperate population.

Call your Elected officials and tell 'em to try and fight to legalize pot.

quote:

Originally posted by D2:
Some legislation is necessary. You cannot throw up your hands in the air and say all such bills are bad because they will hurt startups and web development because of excessive necessary policing of material posted by users. Legislation is necessary. I hope this passes. Youtube might die but to live it must follow the rules.

you more than anyone should not support this bill..

quote:

Originally posted by politikalamity:

quote:

Originally posted by D2:
Some legislation is necessary. You cannot throw up your hands in the air and say all such bills are bad because they will hurt startups and web development because of excessive necessary policing of material posted by users. Legislation is necessary. I hope this passes. Youtube might die but to live it must follow the rules.

you more than anyone should not support this bill..

Why should I not support this or similar bills? CNN and GE among others support something similar if not as ill defined.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Lawmakers stopped anti-piracy legislation in its tracks on Friday, delivering a stunning win for Internet companies that staged an unprecedented online protest this week to kill the previously fast-moving bills.
Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid said he would postpone a critical vote that had been scheduled for January 24 "in light of recent events."
Lamar Smith, the Republican chairman of the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, followed suit, saying his panel would delay action on similar legislation until there is wider agreement on the issue.
"I have heard from the critics and I take seriously their concerns regarding proposed legislation to address the problem of online piracy. It is clear that we need to revisit the approach on how best to address the problem of foreign thieves that steal and sell American inventions and products," Smith said in a statement.
The bills, known as PIPA (PROTECT IP Act) in the Senate and SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) in the House, are aimed at curbing access to overseas websites that traffic in pirated content and counterfeit products, such as movies and music.
The legislation has been a priority for entertainment companies, publishers, pharmaceutical companies and other industry groups who say it is critical to curbing online piracy, which they believe costs them billions of dollars a year.
But technology companies are concerned the laws would undermine Internet freedoms, be difficult to enforce and encourage frivolous lawsuits.
Public sentiment on the bills shifted in recent weeks after Internet players ramped up their lobbying.
White House officials weighed in on Saturday, saying in a blog post that they had concerns about legislation that could make businesses on the Internet vulnerable to litigation and harm legal activity and free speech.
Then on Wednesday, protests blanketed the Internet, turning Wikipedia and other popular websites dark for 24 hours. Google, Facebook, Twitter and others protested the proposed legislation but did not shut down.
The protest had quick results: several sponsors of the legislation, including senators Roy Blunt, Chuck Grassley, Orrin Hatch, John Boozman and Marco Rubio, have withdrawn their support.
In a brief statement on Friday, Reid said there was no reason why concerns about the legislation cannot be resolved. He offered no new date for the vote.
Reid's action comes a day after a senior Democratic aide, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the measure lacked the 60 votes needed to clear a procedural hurdle in the 100-member Senate.
SWIFT REACTION
The indefinite postponement of the bills drew quick praise from the Internet community, and ire from Hollywood.
"We appreciate that lawmakers have listened to our community's concerns, and we stand ready to work with them on solutions to piracy and copyright infringement that will not chill free expression or threaten the economic growth and innovation the Internet provides," a Facebook spokesman said.
Chris Dodd, chief executive of the Motion Picture Association of America and a former Democratic senator, said the stalling of legislation is a boost for criminals.
"As a consequence of failing to act, there will continue to be a safe haven for foreign thieves," Dodd said.
WAY FORWARD?
Lawmakers, technology companies and the entertainment industry pledged to find a way to combat online piracy and copyright infringement.
Reddit.com, a vocal leader in the protests and among the sites to go dark on Wednesday, said it was pleased the protests were able to slow things down, but said piracy needs to be addressed.
"We really need people at the table who have the technical expertise about these issues who can ensure that whatever bills are drafted have airtight, technically sound language, definitions and frameworks," the company's general manager Erik Martin told Reuters.
Reid expressed hope on Friday that Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, who has been shepherding the bill through Congress, could help resolve differences in the legislation.
"I am optimistic that we can reach a compromise in the coming weeks," Reid said.
Leahy slammed the Senate derailment of the anti-piracy legislation as a "knee-jerk reaction to a monumental problem" but said he is committed to getting a bill signed into law this year.
There are already alternatives in the works.
Senator Ron Wyden introduced a bill last month that he said "meets the same publicly stated goals as SOPA or Protect IP without causing massive damage to the Internet."
Representative Darrel Issa on Wednesday introduced a companion bill in the House.
Issa said SOPA and PIPA lacked a fundamental understanding of how Internet technologies work. The technology sector has shown more optimism about prospects for Issa and Wyden's alternative bill, called the OPEN Act.
"It's a great starting point for discussion, and we're definitely very open to that," said Tiffiniy Cheng, co-founder of Fight for the Future, a nonprofit that helped organize the Internet protests against SOPA and PIPA.
(Reporting by Thomas Ferraro and Jasmin Melvin; editing by Bill Trott, Dave Zimmerman and Andre Grenon.)

Some form of law policing this area will be formulated soon. It cannot be left as it is.