DIRECTLY FROM SOPA:

The term `qualifying plaintiff' means, with respect to a particular Internet site or portion thereof, a holder of an intellectual property right harmed by the activities described in paragraph

there is little room for dishonesty about whether someone legally holds an INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHT

the courts ARE a part of the government, they enforce the laws

specifically, those laws addressed in this bill are US CODE, which is written by government and has every reason to be enforced by government

its a process for prosecuting theft of intellectual property

there is nothing in it that permits government to willfully or randomly go around just SHUTTING people down

it refers to already existing US CODES

and spells out the legal recourse taken when those codes are broken

if anyone , and I mean ANYONE, wants to point me to a section of the text which says anything otherwise,, I would greatly appreciate it

(B) INTERNET SEARCH ENGINES- A provider of an Internet search engine shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures, as expeditiously as possible, but in any case within 5 days after being served with a copy of the order, or within such time as the court may order, designed to prevent the foreign infringing site that is subject to the order, or a portion of such site specified in the order, from being served as a direct hypertext link.

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, including measures designed to prevent the domain name of the foreign infringing site (or portion thereof) from resolving to that domain name's Internet Protocol address. Such actions shall be taken as expeditiously as possible, but in any case within 5 days after being served with a copy of the order, or within such time as the court may order.

(A) IMMUNITY FROM SUIT- Other than in an action pursuant to paragraph (4), no cause of action shall lie in any Federal or State court or administrative agency against any entity served with a copy of a court order issued under this subsection, or against any director, officer, employee, or agent thereof, for any act reasonably designed to comply with this subsection or reasonably arising from such order.

Its become pointless debating peoples personal interpretations of what is there,,,

True, but not helpful. Is it a sensible process fo prosecuting theft? Does it keep government powers within check?

Giving police officers the power to shoot people on sight for an 'alleged' stealing would also be 'a process for prosecuting theft' - a very bad process.



I'm not sure what you mean by 'willfully' (I hope that any shutdown would be 'willful'), but you are correct they cannot do it 'randomly'. This law does not allow the government to set up a roulette wheel and play "Which random website will we shut down this week?"

Yet, SOPA will lead to the take-down of non-infringing material, since it gives so much power to 'prosecute' (as you put it) without a trial.



Which is why it is not needed!



Yes, it spells out additional, unnecessary, and dangerously heavy handed recourses that will lead to an erosion of our free speech as collateral damage.

MsHarmony, its not necessary for someone to target you for an intentional violation of your constitutional rights in order for you to have those rights eroded as a consequence of other actions being taken.



Show me the portion of the 'separate but equal' laws which said that black people would be given inferior services.

MsHarmony, when a law makes an abuse possible, its not necessary to find a portion of the law stating that the abuse will happen - all you need is to see the absence of a portion of the law specifying that the abuse won't happen.


Here are some of the portions that unnecessarily expand government powers in a frightening way:








Professionals agree with my interpretation of the above two sections.

I haven't looked at legal opinions on the following, but this also seems really sketchy:




Savvy people already know that SOPA opens the door to intimidation tactics (who can afford to have their site shut down? better not to investigate the matter or seek a proper legal recourse - better just to pull any alleged infringing material immediately) but this text above seems really sketchy to me.

Immunity from suit? So If one party alleges that material infringes, and the attorney general issues a court order on this, and one party illegally violates a contractual agreement with another based on it - does this mean that party will be immune to lawsuits for the violation of their agreement? (I haven't looked at professional legal opinions on this.)




Are you bringing something to the table other than your personal interpretation of what is there? Honestly, your interpretation does not seem to be informed by the IP disputes happen.


And it looks lie we moved from "you probably haven't read it" to "oh, these are just your personal interpretations".

Legal scholars in the tech industry have read it and are saying similar things.

all legal scholars do not agree

and I still dont agree with opposing everything that has ANY possibility of abuse

but doing SOMETHING always gives us a better chance at progressing than doing nothing,,,

In the details, but the basic facts are pretty plain, and the majority agree. This law will allow the attorney general to shutdown entire domains based on accusations, without a proper trial.



No, you are right, that would be stupid. And also a straw man. Its a question of a reasonable degree of empowerment, and reasonable restrictions. This law is unreasonable, gives way too much power to the attorney general, and does not do enough to restrict that power.




In general? In general, thats a fallacy. It feels good, its reassuring especially to people that are prone to panic, but its wrong. Doing something for the sake of doing something can easily be regressive.

it can be regressive, but it has a better CHANCE of being progress than sitting still....

this sounds like a repeat of the scare surrounding the patriot act,,,parts of it sucked,, sure

but overall, my life nor the lives of the large majority of people havent been changed by it one iota,,,,

This is such a head in the sand approach.

So if a law was created that allowed government to imprison you for watching TV, but they just never got around to doing it to you or anyone you know you would be fine with that?

What if they could tell you what channels to watch?
What if they could remove and sensor whatever they want . . but it never was anything you chose to watch anyways?

What a terrible position to take.

==============================================

About SOPA, it reminds me of the UK libel law. It places the entire burden on the person being accused, while the accuser has really little to shoulder.

This is not a fair execution of copyright. If you have a copyright and you think money is being made on your IP it should be up to you to seek restitution. You should not have the power to shut down a site by just making a claim. That claim should be litigated first, and the claim should be found to be valid before any effort is made to shut down the site.

Otherwise you have a situation just like the libel law in the UK where everyone is afraid of making use of free speech becuase anyone with deep enough pockets can punish you with large court bills to defend yourself regardless of merit.

The burden should be on the claimant, ALWAYS and forever. Otherwise you stifle freedoms and place too much power in the hands of the wealthy.

all legal scholars do not agree

I dont believe I accused anyone personally of not having read the bill

and I still dont agree with opposing everything that has ANY possibility of abuse

ALL written laws can be abused,,,thats the nature of men,,,

but doing SOMETHING always gives us a better chance at progressing than doing nothing,,,

Its worse, it takes longer, you have to remove your shoes, strollers disassembled and run, I can not meet anyone at the gate, i have to wait, its longer more of an inconvienence.....ridiculous.....I quit flying

Apparently, this bill has been shelved and isn't supported now.

its a process for prosecuting theft of intellectual property

there is nothing in it that permits government to willfully or randomly go around just SHUTTING people down

it refers to already existing US CODES and spells out the legal recourse taken when those codes are broken

if anyone , and I mean ANYONE, wants to point me to a section of the text which says anything otherwise,, I would greatly appreciate it

Its become pointless debating peoples personal interpretations of what is there,,,

IP infringement is NOT theft

Within our community we're very strong defenders of copyright. We have very strict rules about obeying copyright and we don't link to materials that we know to be copyright infringement. That isn't really the issue. The other side will try to paint this as anybody who's opposed to [SOPA] must be making money off of piracy or be in favor of piracy. That isn't true. The issue here is that this law is very badly written, very broadly overreaching and, in at least the Senate version, would include the creation of a DNS (domain name system) blocking regime that's technically identical to the one that's used by China. I don't think that's the right way the U.S. needs to go in taking a leadership role on the Internet.