Phil, I had read Tom's Hardware essay. I have also read the text of HR 3261. Have you read it? Tom is clearly putting his own spin on the topic, as are many of the bloggers who oppose the bill. I'm assuming you read the bill. Can you cite specific text that you object to?
Legal issues are political issues. Who do you think passes the laws? As far as venues for discussing this bill, I would think that there are more appropriate places than the Parallax forum.
Nonsense. We discuss legal issues here all the time without invoking partisan politics. For example, FCC rules and regulations come up quite frequently, as do matters of patent law.
As far as venues for discussing this bill, I would think that there are more appropriate places than the Parallax forum.
I guess we can agree to disagree about that. The ultimate decision could be made by the moderators; and I will respect whatever action, if any, that they choose to take. (Browser has recused himself, due to a conflict of interest. )
I would assume if a Admin or a Company owner( Ken Gracy ) allready posted in Here ,that the thread is OK .
That said I got back a letter Form my Rep.. . some what generic but I have had a few convos with him in the past ..
so he knows Of me .. for better or worse ..
tomorrow Ill hit the phones again ..
As a content producer ( photographer ) and a consumer ( human ) I know what is at steak here .
DCMA is enough ! .. the simple fact is . the crimes are not being delt with in the right way ...
I have seen my stuff on a few sites I wish I had a easy way to deal with them .. with this law I can make a phone call and all of you tube can be shut down ......
this is not right .. ..
no one person sould have this controll .. its not gonna work ...
The forum guidelines don't mention "partisan politics". The do forbid discussions on ";the most recent upheaval in the legislature". It seems like SOPA fits this description. If the moderators allow bending the rules on this topic, then why have rules at all?
BTW, you seem to have ignored my main question. Can you cite specific text in HR 3261 that you object to?
Can you cite specific text in HR 3261 that you object to?
Sect. 102.c.2 provides that DNS providers and search engines must, when so ordered, make it impossible to link to sites deemed infringing. This represents a legal hijacking and possible fragmentation of the Domain Name System, and places an undue burden on the likes of Google and other search engine providers.
Sect. 102.c.4.A.ii provides penalties for those who offer circumvention means, such as the Firefox add-on that bypasses DNS. That's overreaching, IMO.
BTW, this bill enjoys such bipartisan consensus and support that it can hardly be characterized as an "upheaval in the legislature", which I take to mean partisan bickering: IOW things that could divide the forum community along partisan lines.
Excellent, now that you read the bill and cited sections that impact our freedom you shouild alert your U.S. representative to this. I agree with you on the two issues you cited. I think many of the aspects of this bill concerning piracy, infringement and fraud are important, and it would be good if the bill focuses specifically on those issues.
I've done some research on SOPA, and I agree with some of the reasons for the bill, but I understand the concerns about is as well. However, discussing political issues such as this is forbidden on this forum, and it should be moved to some other forum.
Given the discussion has been about the effects of such a thing being put into place, no real mention of whether the proponents or opponents have an R or D in front of their names, it may still be political. But if you think about it, all things are political; all laws, all regulations come from politicians. Period. And every action or inaction has both overt and covert consequences.
It is not only proper to discuss these things in this forum, but is as essential as discussing the aspects of design and implementation of our products or writings. The arguments (that I have anyway) are that the bill is a feel good to the masses, and a means of control and restrictions imposed by a few "special" people who will attempt to control the content of the internet with little or no oversight or recourse to those who don't have a big bankroll. It also will IMO, cause a dampening of the sharing of much knowledge.
The worst part seems that I could as say a competitor cause someones internet business to be essentially shut down without cause on a whim without having to worry about something like due process get in the way of causing my competitor severe and unrecoverable damage while they fight the shutdown and try to prove that they should have been allowed to operate all along.
So, no we should not get into stupid pissing contests about the merits or faults of having an R/D in a politicians title as that is for other forums, but we better pay attention to the political machinations that directly affect our abilities to conduct business, share knowledge and opinions, and trade ideas without fear of unreasonable laws generated by politicians who pass them either out of malice or ignorance of the real issues underlying their "good intentions". Remember, the staffers are the ones doing the real writing, while the lobbyists (and the interests they represent) get the politicians ear.
Excellent, now that you read the bill and cited sections that impact our freedom you shouild alert your U.S. representative to this. I agree with you on the two issues you cited. I think many of the aspects of this bill concerning piracy, infringement and fraud are important, and it would be good if the bill focuses specifically on those issues.
Yes, some of the ideas are important, but why the additional over-reach? We don't now enforce current law.
The worst part seems that I could as say a competitor cause someones internet business to be essentially shut down without cause on a whim without having to worry about something like due process get in the way of causing my competitor severe and unrecoverable damage while they fight the shutdown and try to prove that they should have been allowed to operate all along.
That seems to be one of the worst aspects of SOPA. Some of the solutions that I provide for clients are web based design tools for their products and services. Within a given industry most of the companies sooner or later end up with similar tools, If all one needs to do is claim plausible copyright infringment it will turn into a war of trying to keep each others sites shut down. Think for a minute how messed up that is. Look at all the effort it takes to get a patent, yet it only gives you the right to sue, the heavy hand of government does not step in and shut the other guy down for possible infringement. In the case of SOPA they need only CLAIM copyright infringement and the heavy hand of govenment can step in WITHOUT DUE PROCESS and block your DNS entries.
I think my next business move will be to establish an alternate DNS or better yet a plug-in which will gain popularity by bypassing those awful DNS blocks imposed by SOPA. Granted, I won't make money in phase one, but as soon as i have thousands of people trusting my "services", I can implement phase two where I create DNS redirects/login pages for large banks, gmail, and paypal. Woo Hoo!
[/devil himself]
This likely scenario scares me to death.. I can see many of my PC customers getting sucked into this trap.
Here's what one of "my" (aak!) Senators had to say:
Dear Mr. James:
I received your letter expressing opposition to the "Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act," commonly known as the "PROTECT IP Act." I appreciate knowing your views on this matter.
The "PROTECT IP Act" (S. 968) gives both copyright and trademark owners and the U.S. Department of Justice the authority to take action against websites that are "dedicated to infringing activities." These are websites that have "no significant use other than engaging in, enabling, or facilitating" copyright infringement, the sale of goods with a counterfeit trademark, or the evasion of technological measures designed to protect against copying.
The bill does not violate First Amendment rights to free speech because copyright piracy is not speech.
America's copyright industry is an important economic engine, and I believe copyright owners should be able to prevent their works from being illegally duplicated and stolen. The protection of intellectual property is particularly vital to California's thriving film, music, and high-technology industries.
I understand you have concerns about the "PROTECT IP Act." While I voted in favor of this bill when it was before the Senate Judiciary Committee, I have also been working with California high-technology businesses to improve the bill and to address the concerns of high-tech businesses, public interest groups and others. I recognize the bill needs further changes to prevent it from imposing undue burdens on legitimate businesses and activities, and I will be working to make the improvements, either by working with Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) or through amendments on the Senate floor.
On May 26, 2011, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed the "PROTECT IP Act" for consideration by the full Senate. Please know I will keep your concerns and thoughts in mind should the Senate proceed to a vote on this legislation. As you may be aware, Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX) has introduced similar legislation, the "Stop Online Piracy Act" (H.R. 3261), in the House of Representatives.
Once again, thank you for sharing your views. I hope you will continue to keep me informed on issues of importance to you. If you have any additional questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841.
Here's what one of "my" (aak!) Senators had to say:...
Hey, at least you guys get some kind of response. I got diddly. I think my congressman comes from the Rupert Murdoch school of "If we want your opinion, we'll give it to you."
Parallax should worry about going out of business....propeller is only thing going for them...as for SOPA its a sure bill to pass...no more free software kiddies
Parallax should worry about going out of business....propeller is only thing going for them...as for SOPA its a sure bill to pass...no more free software kiddies
All the SPIN code in the OBEX is as open source as one can get . ( MIT )
unless you some how Broke the MIT license . I dont see how any one would have a legal Ground to stop parallax ..
oldPGMguy, that is one big bad post you have made.
Parallax should worry about going out of business...
Is there something you know that we don't? As far as I know Parallax is in good business shape and I expect them to be around for a long time to come.
...propeller is only thing going for them...
Clearly not true.
...as for SOPA its a sure bill to pass...
Perhaps, and like the war or drugs or terror it will be equally ineffective. In deed similarly it will have a negative effect on the well being of society.
...no more free software kiddies
What on earth do you mean? Most of the software I use is licensed under the GPL or similar licenses. It's open source, it's free. Such licenses rely on copyright law to remain as free as they would like to be. I can't for the life of me see how SOPA changes any of that.
I dare YAHOO GOOGLE AND the rest to shut down for a day ..
I want to see every fat cat in Wash DC squirm when Gmail . Youtube and the rest are not acessable ..
I am quite mellow on most politics . but this is one I have no mercy for ......
if google did switch off for a day it would make the Biz stop in many places ... but it would Prove a huge point that the US Cant afford to pass this junk //
its going to cost the US a Huge part of its encon.
the Last thing WE need is a Upset in out Econ right now...
I wonder what would happen if every Biz tomarrow would unplug there servers .... how much hell it would rase .. From banks to google . Ohhh my Dr Evil side is pondering this one al night long..
This whole copyright thing has had me hoping mad for ages. Music biz puts out music, radio stations have to pay to play it, if I ride in a taxi now I have to pay for hearing it on the radio in the taxi. If I buy a CD or such I have to pay just in case I am copying that music onto the CD. And so on. And I don't even want to hear 99% of what I am hearing.
Meanwhile, there is a huge pile of recorded material from years back that I would like to hear and would pay for a decent vinyl disc or even CD. But it's not available from the publishers.
All this stuff is rotting in vaults somewhere, due to copyright it's totally unavailable pretty much for ever.
Similarly, how do I get to see some of those thousands of brilliant old black and white movies?
Did I mention that Lamar Smith is my U.S. Representative? Through the weird art of Gerrymandering, the area I live in, which is West of Austin, Tx, is in the same congressional district as Northern San Antonio, which is 80 miles to the south. Rather than write directly to Lamar Smith I decided to contact Joe Pags, who is a San Antonio radio personality that talks to Lamar Smith on his radio show every Wednesday. I sent him an email last Tuesday, and he responded with the single-word response -- "sure".
From: Pagliarulo, Joseph
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 1:40
To: Dave Hein
Subject: RE: SOPA
sure
From: Dave Hein
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 8:29 AM
To: Pagliarulo, Joseph
Subject: SOPA
Joe,
I am in general agreement with the SOPA bill, but the following section in the bill concerns me
Section 102.c.2.A.i A service provider shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures designed to prevent access by its subscribers located within the United States to the foreign infringing site (or portion thereof) that is subject to the order
This requires that Internet providers block access to foreign sites that the Attorney General believes are involved in piracy, patent infringement or some other illegal activity covered by the bill. I believe this has a significant impact on our freedom, and gives the U.S. government the power to apply censorship without due process.
The next time you talk to Lamar Smith, could you ask him why this section is necessary, and whether it could be removed from the bill?
Thanks,
Dave
On Wednesday, January 11, he talked to Lamar Smith, and at the end of their discussion he told him that several listeners are concerned about SOPA, and that it gives the Attorney General too much power to block foreign web sites. Lamar Smith's response was that a court case would need to be decided before a foreign web site could be blocked, and the Attorney General could not act on it alone.
Now, less than a week later, the DNS blocking provision has been removed. Coincedence? I don't think so. Actually, the change probably was a result of the White House speaking out against the DNS blocking provision.
Comments
Legal issues are political issues. Who do you think passes the laws? As far as venues for discussing this bill, I would think that there are more appropriate places than the Parallax forum.
I guess we can agree to disagree about that. The ultimate decision could be made by the moderators; and I will respect whatever action, if any, that they choose to take. (Browser has recused himself, due to a conflict of interest.
-Phil
That said I got back a letter Form my Rep.. . some what generic but I have had a few convos with him in the past ..
so he knows Of me .. for better or worse ..
tomorrow Ill hit the phones again ..
As a content producer ( photographer ) and a consumer ( human ) I know what is at steak here .
DCMA is enough ! .. the simple fact is . the crimes are not being delt with in the right way ...
I have seen my stuff on a few sites I wish I had a easy way to deal with them .. with this law I can make a phone call and all of you tube can be shut down ......
this is not right .. ..
no one person sould have this controll .. its not gonna work ...
Peter...
BTW, you seem to have ignored my main question. Can you cite specific text in HR 3261 that you object to?
Sect. 102.c.4.A.ii provides penalties for those who offer circumvention means, such as the Firefox add-on that bypasses DNS. That's overreaching, IMO.
BTW, this bill enjoys such bipartisan consensus and support that it can hardly be characterized as an "upheaval in the legislature", which I take to mean partisan bickering: IOW things that could divide the forum community along partisan lines.
-Phil
-Phil
Given the discussion has been about the effects of such a thing being put into place, no real mention of whether the proponents or opponents have an R or D in front of their names, it may still be political. But if you think about it, all things are political; all laws, all regulations come from politicians. Period. And every action or inaction has both overt and covert consequences.
It is not only proper to discuss these things in this forum, but is as essential as discussing the aspects of design and implementation of our products or writings. The arguments (that I have anyway) are that the bill is a feel good to the masses, and a means of control and restrictions imposed by a few "special" people who will attempt to control the content of the internet with little or no oversight or recourse to those who don't have a big bankroll. It also will IMO, cause a dampening of the sharing of much knowledge.
The worst part seems that I could as say a competitor cause someones internet business to be essentially shut down without cause on a whim without having to worry about something like due process get in the way of causing my competitor severe and unrecoverable damage while they fight the shutdown and try to prove that they should have been allowed to operate all along.
So, no we should not get into stupid pissing contests about the merits or faults of having an R/D in a politicians title as that is for other forums, but we better pay attention to the political machinations that directly affect our abilities to conduct business, share knowledge and opinions, and trade ideas without fear of unreasonable laws generated by politicians who pass them either out of malice or ignorance of the real issues underlying their "good intentions". Remember, the staffers are the ones doing the real writing, while the lobbyists (and the interests they represent) get the politicians ear.
Frank
Yes, some of the ideas are important, but why the additional over-reach? We don't now enforce current law.
Frank
That seems to be one of the worst aspects of SOPA. Some of the solutions that I provide for clients are web based design tools for their products and services. Within a given industry most of the companies sooner or later end up with similar tools, If all one needs to do is claim plausible copyright infringment it will turn into a war of trying to keep each others sites shut down. Think for a minute how messed up that is. Look at all the effort it takes to get a patent, yet it only gives you the right to sue, the heavy hand of government does not step in and shut the other guy down for possible infringement. In the case of SOPA they need only CLAIM copyright infringement and the heavy hand of govenment can step in WITHOUT DUE PROCESS and block your DNS entries.
C.W.
I think my next business move will be to establish an alternate DNS or better yet a plug-in which will gain popularity by bypassing those awful DNS blocks imposed by SOPA. Granted, I won't make money in phase one, but as soon as i have thousands of people trusting my "services", I can implement phase two where I create DNS redirects/login pages for large banks, gmail, and paypal. Woo Hoo!
[/devil himself]
This likely scenario scares me to death.. I can see many of my PC customers getting sucked into this trap.
OBC
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57358374-281/sen-leahy-bows-to-pressure-pledges-to-amend-protect-ip-bill/?tag=mncol;txt
Thanks to everyone who contacted their representatives in Congress!
It's not over, by a long shot; but it's clear that constituents still have a say.
-Phil
Dear Mr. James:
I received your letter expressing opposition to the "Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act," commonly known as the "PROTECT IP Act." I appreciate knowing your views on this matter.
The "PROTECT IP Act" (S. 968) gives both copyright and trademark owners and the U.S. Department of Justice the authority to take action against websites that are "dedicated to infringing activities." These are websites that have "no significant use other than engaging in, enabling, or facilitating" copyright infringement, the sale of goods with a counterfeit trademark, or the evasion of technological measures designed to protect against copying.
The bill does not violate First Amendment rights to free speech because copyright piracy is not speech.
America's copyright industry is an important economic engine, and I believe copyright owners should be able to prevent their works from being illegally duplicated and stolen. The protection of intellectual property is particularly vital to California's thriving film, music, and high-technology industries.
I understand you have concerns about the "PROTECT IP Act." While I voted in favor of this bill when it was before the Senate Judiciary Committee, I have also been working with California high-technology businesses to improve the bill and to address the concerns of high-tech businesses, public interest groups and others. I recognize the bill needs further changes to prevent it from imposing undue burdens on legitimate businesses and activities, and I will be working to make the improvements, either by working with Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) or through amendments on the Senate floor.
On May 26, 2011, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed the "PROTECT IP Act" for consideration by the full Senate. Please know I will keep your concerns and thoughts in mind should the Senate proceed to a vote on this legislation. As you may be aware, Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX) has introduced similar legislation, the "Stop Online Piracy Act" (H.R. 3261), in the House of Representatives.
Once again, thank you for sharing your views. I hope you will continue to keep me informed on issues of importance to you. If you have any additional questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841.
Wishing you a happy 2012.
Sincerely yours,
Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator
Hey, at least you guys get some kind of response. I got diddly. I think my congressman comes from the Rupert Murdoch school of "If we want your opinion, we'll give it to you."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/15/us/white-house-says-it-opposes-parts-of-2-antipiracy-bills.html?_r=1&hp
All the SPIN code in the OBEX is as open source as one can get . ( MIT )
unless you some how Broke the MIT license . I dont see how any one would have a legal Ground to stop parallax ..
In effect the code is public domain ..
Peter...
Is there something you know that we don't? As far as I know Parallax is in good business shape and I expect them to be around for a long time to come.
Clearly not true.
Perhaps, and like the war or drugs or terror it will be equally ineffective. In deed similarly it will have a negative effect on the well being of society.
What on earth do you mean? Most of the software I use is licensed under the GPL or similar licenses. It's open source, it's free. Such licenses rely on copyright law to remain as free as they would like to be. I can't for the life of me see how SOPA changes any of that.
And by the way, who are you calling "kiddies".
-Phil
@Heater: I suspect we are being trolled...
I want to see every fat cat in Wash DC squirm when Gmail . Youtube and the rest are not acessable ..
I am quite mellow on most politics . but this is one I have no mercy for ......
if google did switch off for a day it would make the Biz stop in many places ... but it would Prove a huge point that the US Cant afford to pass this junk //
its going to cost the US a Huge part of its encon.
the Last thing WE need is a Upset in out Econ right now...
I wonder what would happen if every Biz tomarrow would unplug there servers .... how much hell it would rase .. From banks to google . Ohhh my Dr Evil side is pondering this one al night long..
I say have a national refuse to Boot day ..
Peter..
Bah, I fall for it every time.
This whole copyright thing has had me hoping mad for ages. Music biz puts out music, radio stations have to pay to play it, if I ride in a taxi now I have to pay for hearing it on the radio in the taxi. If I buy a CD or such I have to pay just in case I am copying that music onto the CD. And so on. And I don't even want to hear 99% of what I am hearing.
Meanwhile, there is a huge pile of recorded material from years back that I would like to hear and would pay for a decent vinyl disc or even CD. But it's not available from the publishers.
All this stuff is rotting in vaults somewhere, due to copyright it's totally unavailable pretty much for ever.
Similarly, how do I get to see some of those thousands of brilliant old black and white movies?
http://radio.woai.com/cc-common/mainheadlines3.html?feed=119078&article=9616133
Did I mention that Lamar Smith is my U.S. Representative? Through the weird art of Gerrymandering, the area I live in, which is West of Austin, Tx, is in the same congressional district as Northern San Antonio, which is 80 miles to the south. Rather than write directly to Lamar Smith I decided to contact Joe Pags, who is a San Antonio radio personality that talks to Lamar Smith on his radio show every Wednesday. I sent him an email last Tuesday, and he responded with the single-word response -- "sure".
On Wednesday, January 11, he talked to Lamar Smith, and at the end of their discussion he told him that several listeners are concerned about SOPA, and that it gives the Attorney General too much power to block foreign web sites. Lamar Smith's response was that a court case would need to be decided before a foreign web site could be blocked, and the Attorney General could not act on it alone.
Now, less than a week later, the DNS blocking provision has been removed. Coincedence? I don't think so.
citizen Kane .......... Rosebud.....................