sagitarius_2k 10 Posted January 15, 2012 White House Won’t Back Internet Censorship The Obama administration won’t back legislation to combat online piracy if it encourages censorship, undermines cybersecurity or disrupts the structure of the Internet, three White House technology officials said. Their statement, posted yesterday on the White House website, was a response to online petitions on legislative proposals to combat online piracy. The movie and music industries support such measures as a means of cracking down on theft. “While we believe that online piracy by foreign websites is a serious problem that requires a serious legislative response, we will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet,†Aneesh Chopra, Victoria Espinel and Howard Schmidt wrote in a blog post. The statement marks the administration’s most significant foray into a fight between content creators and Internet companies that has been playing out in Congress. The Senate is scheduled to hold a procedural vote Jan. 24 on starting debate on an anti-piracy bill. Chopra is the U.S. chief technology officer, Espinel is the coordinator for intellectual property enforcement in the Office of Management and Budget, and Schmidt is the White House cybersecurity coordinator. The officials called on Congress to pass legislation this year to combat online piracy. They also wrote that the White House would soon be hosting a conference call with supporters of the petitions as well as an online event. House Chairman’s Statement U.S. Representative Lamar Smith, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said his Stop Online Piracy Act meets the administration’s tests. Smith announced on Jan. 13 that he would remove a provision that would require Internet service providers, when ordered by a court, to block access to non-U.S. websites offering pirated content or counterfeit goods. The bill’s opponents say this could hurt the domain-name system. In a statement yesterday, Smith said that censorship doesn’t include enforcing laws against “foreign thieves†who steal content. “Congress cannot stand by and do nothing while some of America’s most profitable and productive industries are under attack,†said Smith, a Texas Republican. Internet Companies Opposed Google Inc. (GOOG), Facebook Inc. and other Internet companies oppose Smith’s bill and companion legislation in the Senate. They say it will promote online censorship and threaten the growth of the U.S. technology industry. The Motion Picture Association of America, which supports anti-piracy efforts, applauded the White House call for legislation. “For too long in this debate, those that seek to preserve and profit from the status quo have moved to obstruct reasonable legislation,†said Michael O’Leary, the group’s senior executive vice president for global policy and external affairs. O’Leary said in the statement that “meaningful†legislation “must include measured and reasonable remedies that include ad brokers, payment processors and search engines.†Members of the Washington-based MPAA include the studio arms of The Walt Disney Co. and Time Warner Inc. Hearing Postponed Representative Darrell Issa said yesterday that he would postpone a hearing on the bill that had been scheduled for Jan. 18. Even with the changes made by Smith, Issa said, the bill is still “fundamentally flawed.†Issa, a California Republican who is chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, said he has assurances from House leaders that the bill won’t go to the floor without a consensus. He has proposed an alternative approach. “The voice of the Internet community has been heard,†Issa said in a statement. “Much more education for members of Congress about the workings of the Internet is essential if anti-piracy legislation is to be workable and achieve broad appeal.†Smith’s bill is H.R. 3261. The Senate bill is S. 968. _http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-14/white-house-won-t-support-internet-censorship-in-online-anti-piracy-bills.html So, is that mean this Law will not pass?? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
onlyrazor 11 Posted January 15, 2012 Apparently, the DNS provision got pulled from SOPA to increase the chances of the bill passing through congress. Read here. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
walker 0 Posted January 15, 2012 Hi all Apparently Fox boss Murdoch is TwitteRanting, TwitteRaving and TwitteRaging that President Obama is not supporting the SOPA bill: http://gizmodo.com/5876189/murdoch-slams-obama-for-supporting-silicon-valley-piracy-leaders Really that senile old fool is almost as decrepit as his failing business. ROFL Kind Regards walker Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tonci87 163 Posted January 15, 2012 Murdoch is stupid. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
reconteam 19 Posted January 16, 2012 Hi allReally that senile old fool is almost as decrepit as his failing business. He's old and crazy but his businesses aren't failing. I much prefer Fox to CNN or MSNBC. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
batto 17 Posted January 16, 2012 He's old and crazy but his businesses aren't failing. I much prefer Fox to CNN or MSNBC. http://gizmodo.com/5876189/murdoch-slams-obama-for-supporting-silicon-valley-piracy-leaders Every comment I've read so far is quite positive :D. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ProfTournesol 956 Posted January 17, 2012 Looks like Marek is concerned too :) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Colossus 2 Posted January 17, 2012 Kudos to BI for making a statement :) Maybe I'll actually get some work done tomorrow, seeing that most of the internet is shutting down for a day :p Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tonci87 163 Posted January 17, 2012 Great Move BIS! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
walker 0 Posted January 17, 2012 (edited) Hi all Kudos to BIS and Marek, they are a new media organisation of the kind that SOPA is designed to cripple. As I pointed out earlier in the thread; the reason Old Fashioned media organisations Like Murdoch's dying Fox business, and the likes of Universal and the other media Dinosaurs, want this law; is simply to prevent market entrants with a better understanding of the Internet from disrupting and making redundant the Dinosaurs out of date business models. Universal fear the Musicians realising they do not any longer need to sign to a Label that takes 95% of all they earn. And like any Entrenched Market Player they will use every underhand trick they can to prevent an open Market and competition: ...On the matter of censorship disguised as copyright.Universal missused the copyright protection function of Youtube to take down an advertising Jingle to which it had no copyright, to prevent a company it is in dispute with from advertising: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2075259/Censorship-row-Universal-Music-Group-suggests-make-YouTube-video-doesnt-like.html... Fox/Sky and all the other Film and television broadcasters fear loosing out to the likes of Netflix, and the online on demand Internet TV of Google Apple and the host of On Demand TV stations, where the market is open and cut throat and often made and marketed by the the Directors, Editors, Special Effects staff and Actors. Often for a far better cut than they got from the likes of Fox and the other old fashioned Networks who drop any program that becomes too popular as it means that the Artists, directors and actual makers of the product can demand a better share. Joss Whedon had his projects cut as soon as they became too big for Networks to demand their unfair share. Films were something that they could prevent Actors and Directors from making them selves, and cutting out the producer company, by ensuring the budgets are in the Millions. Then some one comes along and makes a Blockbuster special effects movie for the less than a Million. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1470827/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsters_(2010_film)#Production All this disruptive technology is what they want to prevent. A Free Market is the thing that all Entrenched Market Players fear most. The SOPA law is not about protecting artists hence why so many of them oppose it. It is about preventing the artists, especialy New Artists, gaining access to the market other than through the owned and run turnstiles of the Old Media Dinosaurs that allow them like any gangster to demand the biggest share. For once the Majority of Artists realise they do not need to sign their soul to these companies those companies are extinct. A Free and Open market is why the Old Media Dinosaurs Fear the Internet so much. Kind Regards walker Edited January 17, 2012 by walker Grammar Spelling Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
st_dux 26 Posted January 17, 2012 I'm always stunned when this happens, but +1 to everything Walker just said. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
purepassion 22 Posted January 17, 2012 Absolutely supporting BIS's initiative on this matter! It would really be more than a shame if this bill passes through Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nicholas 5 Posted January 17, 2012 (edited) Just out of curiosity, but I know for 100% that this law would affect Americans. But how much does it affect other countries? I noticed how many people from other countries are against SOPA. The website about SOPA says that only Americans would be blocked, no one else. Considering the fact that pretty much everybody hates America (:(), wouldn't most fully support SOPA? Thanks. Edited January 17, 2012 by Nicholas Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Daniel 0 Posted January 17, 2012 For starters, if the bill is passed, it would set a precedent that other countries might choose to follow. "The US did it, why can't we?". Full support for BIS and all the other sites involved. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tonci87 163 Posted January 17, 2012 Well everything walker said +1 @Dice Other contrys will follow if the US does that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
b101_uk 10 Posted January 17, 2012 Just out of curiosity, but I know for 100% that this law would affect Americans. But how much does it affect other countries? Not a lot, all that would happen is we could lose the likes of e.g. youtube for a bit until they move totally out of the USA too elsewhere like the UK or EU, it’s no bad thing to move stuff out of the USA anyway. ;) I hope the bill's goes through. Still if we had this sort of internet kafuffle over the past 11 years, we may have avoided some pointless medalling in country’s affairs and pointless unjust war's, instead the money-makers like youtube, facebook, google etc etc etc can whip up a storm from the masses when their revenue is at stake. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nicholas 5 Posted January 17, 2012 I don't think websites would have to be moved out of the US, would they? Wouldn't they just use DNS filtering? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
walker 0 Posted January 17, 2012 Hi all In reply to Dice; the US is already applying existing Laws on copyright against people in other countries daring to link to sites that contain whatever they classify as Piracy. Sheffield student faces extradition over 'piracy'A judge rules Richard O'Dwyer can be extradited to the US where he is alleged to have breached copyright law. By Tom Brewster, 16 Jan 2012 at 09:49 A student accused of breaching piracy laws is facing extradition to the US, where he could get up to five years in jail... http://www.itpro.co.uk/638311/sheffield-student-faces-extradition-over-piracy As always follow the link to the original article in full The architects of SOPA want to make it against the law to trade with a company that is accused of being involved in breaking it, eg. if you link to a site that links to something as this kid did then that is enough for your company to get blacklisted and your assets seized or as in this case for you to be extradited straight to a high security prison and waiting for months or even years in prison for a trial that could just as easily find you not guilty. Kind Regards walker Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dm 9 Posted January 17, 2012 As I pointed out earlier in the thread; the reason Old Fashioned media organisations Like Murdoch's dying Fox business, and the likes of Universal and the other media Dinosaurs, want this law; is simply to prevent market entrants with a better understanding of the Internet from disrupting and making redundant the Dinosaurs out of date business models...Universal fear the Musicians realising they do not any longer need to sign to a Label that takes 95% of all they earn. And like any Entrenched Market Player they will use every underhand trick they can to prevent an open Market and competition... I dont often agree with walker, but he's 100% spot on here. SOPA and PIPA are the last gasps of a dying production industry, who are being ousted by advances in technology. I don't think websites would have to be moved out of the US, would they? Wouldn't they just use DNS filtering? Under earlier versions of SOPA, anyone within the US convicted of breaching IP rights (and therefore getting their website blocked) would be facing up to 5 years in prison and up to $150,000 fine per view of the copyrighted material. SOPA would pretty much be the death of American web providers (hosting services, file hosts, etc etc). Hell, under SOPA youtube, facebook and the like are all illegal... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nicholas 5 Posted January 17, 2012 Hi allIn reply to Dice; the US is already applying existing Laws on copyright against people in other countries daring to link to sites that contain whatever they classify as Piracy. http://www.itpro.co.uk/638311/sheffield-student-faces-extradition-over-piracy As always follow the link to the original article in full The architects of SOPA want to make it against the law to trade with a company that is accused of being involved in breaking it, eg if you link to a site that links to something as this kid did then that is enough for your company to get blacklisted and your assets seized or as in this case be extradited straight to a high security prison in waiting for months or even years for a trial that could just as easily find you not guilty. Kind Regards walker Ok, thanks for the information. I am 100% against SOPA, but just wasn't sure how it would effect other countries. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
batto 17 Posted January 17, 2012 (edited) For starters, if the bill is passed, it would set a precedent that other countries might choose to follow. "The US did it, why can't we?". Full support for BIS and all the other sites involved. Not to mention that some countries are already forced to do it: http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/01/17/0245204/copyright-lobby-wants-canada-out-of-tpp-until-stronger-copyright-laws-passed http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/01/05/1539230/us-threatens-spain-for-not-implementing-sopa-like-law http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/01/12/0141219/music-industry-sues-irish-government-for-piracy http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=2011032316585825 Kudos to BIS! Edited January 17, 2012 by batto Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
onlyrazor 11 Posted January 17, 2012 Stay classy, developed world. Stay classy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mattxr 9 Posted January 17, 2012 This is what the chinese do and wasn't the USA against that Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
icebreakr 3159 Posted January 18, 2012 I'm shutting down my website for 24 hours. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Take_action&mobileaction=view_normal_site#Black_out_your_own_website_on_January_18 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
