Can anyone expand on this?

On the FOR side, the basic idea seems to be that if a company is selling stuff that infringes other peoples intellectual property that ISP's and such would have to block them. My understanding is that means you cant go on Amazon.com and buy cheap shitty chinese knockoffs, such as in the case of the Nikon MB-D11 battery grip for the D7k. Amazon would be forced to block those sellers on thier US site, or they themselves could be held responsible. I suppose if everyone stopped buying cheap chinese knockoffs and other things of the sort we wouldnt be sending all our money to china, and the US manufacturers would be paid for thier efforts, and by making more money they could even reduce the cost of things.

That is on one side


ON THE OTHER SIDE, is this

"Dont let congress sensor the web" with claims that the bill pretty much opens up pandoras box for the government to regulate the web, however, i have not heard anyone explain exactly how that would happen. The lack of information on this side makes me wonder if it is just hyperbole and panic driven thinking.


im not arguing for or against, i just want a better understanding of how protecting intellectual property rights is a bad thing, and/or what parts of the bill are freaking everyone out?

whatever the bid deal was, apparently google won and it is over.

It is still far from over....after the backlash our senators and representatives experienced yesterday many of the original supporters have reversed their opinion and the others who are still in favor have agreed that more thought needs to be put into it before anything really moves forward.

The bills as they currently stand are far to vague and leaves too many things that can be interpreted differently by different people. And we already know our government interprets things as it makes sense to them at the time not how it is/was supposed to be.

I am for protecting intellectual property rights but ultimately it comes down to the RIAA/MPAA (the main people who pushed for this bill in the first place) trying to get more people to buy movies and CDs so they can continue to extort money from the artists/actors they represent (and also the people who sell fake Gucci and Coach bags) and anyone else who feels their idea or design has been infringed upon. If that was the case this site would probably be shut down and their funds cut off if they [Timescapes] were not policing every post for copyright infringement.
WHY???
Because anyone can say "Hey Mr. Government, I posted these pics of the DSLR camera dolly that I designed and now I see someone else post pictures of what he/she built after me and it is very similar/or has the same concept as what I built. Well I made it first and released it to the public on this forum, so it was my idea therefore I am the only one entitled to build and possess it and you must order this website to take remove the post or cut the funding to the website/search engine/etc if they do not comply."

So if someone builds a StageZeroDolly Copy and posts pictures of it (even with no intentions on selling it) they would technically be breaking the law. Of course DP would have to report the infringement in order for it to be "enforced." And if Google's BOTS cached that page then Google would also have to make sure the page gets removed from their database. In the extreme-end but allowed in this bill; just me writing the individual words "Stage Zero Dolly" (not even all in the same line or paragraph) could be considered infringement. EXAMPLE: My camera dolly is up on the stage and it cost me close to zero to build.

The bills if not drastically changed and clearly defined would be a giant step towards becoming the next China or Cuba.

Soon enough we will have the "INTRANET OF THE UNITED STATES" as the national web provider and the homepage (the only page) will show us the daily weather as always being sunny, the stock market on an ever growing gain, the government not having trillions of dollars of debt and other government propaganda.

Sorry for the major rant but it just angers and scares me to see how much our country keeps trying to change and take more freedoms away from us mostly for a company's needs and not the citizens' needs.

Soooo.....by your example, If I put up a picture and im wearing a shirt, by your example the person who, made that shirt could sue me? But i am already protected by several laws on that. it would be contradictory to itself. it makes no sence. a law does not trump an ammendment.....

are you sure that is what the bill actually means?

something like that is so laughable they would never be able to enforce it. There would be no point in even bothering with it. Plus it would lap over tons of other copyright laws, fair use laws, it would be so contradictory to everything else.

My understanding is it was to help prevent the intellectual property of companies being ripped off and sold back for dirt cheap, IE: chinese knockoffs that blatantly disregard any sort of copyright. I suppose it would suck paying a team of engineers for a year to develop a system just so china can steal the info and sell the ripped off version to your target demographic for a fraction of the cost.

not trying to argue here, but your response is almost the typical canned response i get on this thing, more passion and exclamations but no real information, just an interpretation that seems awfully heavy on one side. I Understand this is something you are passionate about and i dont want to take away from that, but if it is as you were saying it would be so unbelieveavly un-enforceable it would probably be largely ignored. I have a hard time anyone would bother with such an impossible bill, or what the point of it could possibly be.

i suppose ill just have to try to read and understand it myself.

Here is what i really sort of read into this. Sites like google and amazon would probably have to spend a bunch of money in order to keep within the requirements of the new law. Amazon is making money of these chinese knockoffs, and they dont want to spend money trying to keep those things off thier site. I mean, what company wants to spend extra money to reduce the amount they make? So whats the easiest way to get rid of this bill? just start a blog post somewhere about how this bill is going to strip away all our rights and turn this into 1940's russia, and let that interpretation of this spread like wildfire through the web-o-sphere, because just off a fear based idea they can get a huge following to email thier senators and congressmen. problem solved.

that to me, makes more sense than the idea that im going to be sued because i put a pic of myself on the web and im holding a coors light because of some huge government plan to control everyone. lol, as if the governemtn even has the money to bother with all that stuff.

lol

like i said, jut intending for friendly discussion on this, generally i find that the truth of these matters is more towards the middle.

i dont claim to be an expert on this, im just hesitant to look too far on one side or the other.

guess i have some reading to do.

That's a good one Jack and you are so right there. Ultimately it's just another thing for our tax dollars to be spent on.

The rather extreme examples I pointed out (I laughed while I wrote them) are definitely on the extreme end but when something is written that is vague and leaves room for too much "gray" area interpretation that could and most likely would happen.

Jack, I actually somewhat support this bill (surprising right? but they really have to make some significant changes before I would fully support it. Hell even the White House doesn't support it and the buck stops there right?

Now we wait and see what how the vote goes on the 24th.

If the Feds are and have been taking down "pirate" sites or making the sites make changes before this bill (ie. Megaupload.com the other day, ISOHunt a year or two ago, MSCracks ) what really is the purpose of pushing this bill thru in the first place? Or is there really some sort of hidden agenda --------makes you think right?

CONSPIRACY THEORY ------------- just kiding, I'm really not that bad I usually don't even give a damn

Lol, yeah, laws can be awfully slippery sometimes, especially with the wording or added provisions. A prime example would be that anti-bullying law in michigan called "matts safe law"

in a nutshell this kid matt was gay, and he was out of the closet and constantly bullied at school but he was sort of an activist trying to prevent bullying, anyway the kid had enough and ended up commiting suicide.

so Matt's parents ran this legislation which was a broad anti-bullying law making it illegal for anyone to intentionally physically or emotionally attack somebody in a bullying fashion.

Everything was running through untill some dickhole slipped some religious verbage in the bill making it to where you could not go after the bully if his bullying was the result of "deeply held religious beliefs". which instantly turned the bill on its head and instead of making bullying illegal, created provisions to legitimize religious based bullying and it would protect the bully from any recourse as long as the bully said "i kicked that fags ass cause god told me to"

lol

needless to say the family that was pushing this bill through was horrified to see this change, luckily it caused a large enough backlash they stripped that verbage from the bill.

it just goes to show you really gotta pay attention to the language surrounding the bill.

Jack: some updates over the past 2 hours.......

** Congress halts anti-piracy bills **
The US House of Representatives and Senate postpone two anti-online piracy bills, Pipa and Sopa, days after widespread web protests.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/news/world-us-canada-16655272


** CEA Hails Congressional Decision to Pull Votes on SOPA and PIPA **
http://www.sunherald.com/2012/01/20/3699302/cea-hails-congressional-decision.html?story_link=email_msg