New Bill Being Considered In Congress Could Shut Down Social Media Sites Crucial To 'Occupy' Protests

now now ms c, this would surely be in the interest of national security.

yeah, sure it would!

Starting to look more like pre WW II Hitler Germany. The Reich wing definitely needs a slap down in the 2012 elections.

Good seed. It's not just the Right--it's the establishment elites including the POTUS.

It'd be nice if the Democrats could field a real populist presidential candidate. Without that, Romney and the Reps could make a huge sweep of offices.

That was tried in Egypt too. At the time the powers that be in the US didn't seem to approve. Imagine that.

The Religious Reich and the jesus syndicates are coming for you.

Bend over and prepare to accept your conservative bible and constitution courtesy of the Republican party of god, tea, Koch and lies.

If this is true,Who's acting like fascists now?

Holy Sh!!! They are trying silence the people!! What next, the newspapers and TV (of course not, they wouldnt have FOX!)? First step on the road to fascism as you said chitownty!!

At #1.5 --

Good seed. It's not just the Right--it's the establishment elites including the POTUS.

Nope...there's no such thing as "right" and "left" anymore (much to the sadness of people such as myself). Now there's just the right-wing and everyone else.

It'd be nice if the Democrats could field a real populist presidential candidate. Without that, Romney and the Reps could make a huge sweep of offices.

My ass.

Obama's done everything he said he would and all people can scream is "but what about!?..." --fill in the blank--

In all fairness, the Republicans have also done exactly what they said they'd do...NOTHING.

With the OWS moving the conversation to the left the Potus will be impowered to move to the left also. This happened with FDR. The more Hoovervilles, the more left he was able to move. This brought us the New Deal. In 2012 we need to elect representatives that support what the OWS stands for which I believe is get money out of politics, reform the tax code in such a way that the middle class and small business' are protected and encouraged to expand, and invest in America and Americans.

This is BS. Just FYI. Obama already gave himself the power to shut down the entire internet if its a national security issue. So there is no need for a bill like this and its utter bs.

The powerful elite will do whatever is necessary to maintain their control.

Sounds more like it is being done to protect copyrighted material, though since the article does not reference what law or bill this even is it is impossible to tell.

At #1.13 -- That's just a talking point, this is about something concrete.

It's about being fed up with the 1% of this country who -- compared with their income -- pay close to NOTHING in taxes telling the rest of us that we must tighten OUR belts in order to dig this country out of the financial hole THEY created.

So, NO, it's not about the "powerful elites", IT'S ABOUT THE RICH, CHEAP ASSES PAYING WHAT'S THEIRS TO PAY, just like the rest of us.

We're sick of living in the Wealthiest Country God has ever seen fit to bless the World with while having to budget like we're in the @!$%#ing third-world.

Ms CYPRAH
No doubt, the Republicans are feeling jittery!

The Bill is sponsored by A DEMOCRAT and had 34 co-sponsors, HALF OF WHICH are Democrats.
How is it only Republicans 'feeling jittery'?? Do Democrats want to shut down social media too??
Oh wait no, that not what the bill entails. You wouldn't know that because the seeded article does nothing to find reality. It was looking for a talking point and found a vague connection to one so they wrote a half-assed article while leaving out the pertinent details in hopes that lemmings would just follow them right over the cliff rather than actually look for the actual facts.

mountainmike-1199289
The Reich wing definitely needs a slap down in the 2012 elections.

I wasn't aware the Nationalist Socialist German Worker's Party was going to be part of the 2012 US Elections. News to me...

since folks know the sponsor and co-sponsors for the bill, why isn't a link provided to confirm the bill?

govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s112-968
Add www. before the address. NV won't let me post links yet

Two things:

1. Bring it on
2. Yup, before Twitter, Facebook, and iPhones there was no protesting of any kind. At all. Ever.

These people give stupid a bad name.

The teabaggers can submit and vote for whatever they want in the House. it won't get by the Senate nor signed by Obama.

First Do any of you even know how long it takes to get a bill moveing? How about get some facts and come back to the table. I swear it's like some of you live under a rock that hides you from facts or common sense.

felony to stream unlicensed content — including cover band performances, karaoke videos, video game play-throughs, and more

Second so because an artist wants to get thier pay this is a plot to destroy the OWS movement. Really I mean I have seen you guys streach before but this is just silly.

RaisedByWolves
The teabaggers can submit and vote for whatever they want in the House. it won't get by the Senate nor signed by Obama.

Reading helps.
This is a Democrat sponsored bill, half the co-sponsors are Democrats, O! and the bill has nothing to do with shutting down legal websites.

This is a disgusting POS of legislation. I will always oppose censorship. Remember that when a similar Democrat sponsored measure happens in the future against some Right wing cause !!!

This is a prime example of why we need TERM LIMITS !! No matter which party they belong to, career politicians are Statists and they will try to support their political and personal beliefs and impose them on others through government measures !!

brings to mind the age old oppressive adage...

IF YOU CAN'T BEAT, CORRAL, GAS, & WOUND THEM INTO SUBMISSION...LEGISLATE YOUR SUPPRESSION.

#WORKS LIKE A CHARM EVERYTIME

The Bill is sponsored by A DEMOCRAT and had 34 co-sponsors, HALF OF WHICH are Democrats.

Wow, those Republicans are evil. They must have some sort of mind control powers to get Democrats to do their dirty work for them.../sarc

It sounds to me like the uber-powerful, elite, 1% are getting pretty scared of a few unwashed, lazy hippies camping in a park.

Sounds more like an attempt to protect the intellectual property rights of artists. When an article complains about a law but does not provide a link to the actual text of the proposed legislation, you need to be suspicious. The article states that the bill will prohibit the broadcast of "unlicensed" content. That seems to suggest that it will simply prohibit the broadcast of content that belongs to others (i.e. those who hold the license). How would this affect the posting of videos taken in public, of public protests. Need to read the bill before passing judgment.

Having just read the bill, linked in comment 2 below, the claim that this is somehow an infringement on free speech is ridiculous. Speech is not "free" when it belongs to someone else. This simply tries to control the theft of the intellectual property of others. The article is misleading, as is the headline. DId the seeder actually read the article, or the bill, before posting such a misleading headline? Would be a good idea in the future.

Only someone who did not read the bill or, if they did read it, did not understand it or the FIrst Amendment could suggest that this bill in any way violated the First Amendment. It simply protects intellectual property.

At #1.31 --

112th Congress is not a republican controlled Congress

So long as the Republicans can say the phrase "I intend to filibuster" and stop bills from even coming to a vote...YES, it is a Republican Controlled (I dare say "do NOTHING") Congress.

Taking their cue from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Chinese Communist Party, and other paragons of civil liberties, I presume?

You can pass all the laws you want. Enforcing them s another matter.

This bill was started long before OWS protests. This bill needs to be defeated though. It will destroy youtube and many other sites. If you post a video of your child's birthday party and the TV or radio is on in the background your video will be deleted util you get written permission from the owners of what ever is playing in the background. It does not matter if the owners care you have to have their permission first. All those kids like my nephew who have karaoke videos can become felons. No more posting clips from News networks with written approval. No more product review videos that protect consumers.

It is an attack on free speech networks like Fox News will be able to use it to get clips of them lieing or distorting the News removed. The media will get the thousands of Ron Paul and Dennis kucinich videos taken down.

Is this the same bill? please do check out the sponsors of the bill.

This is more paranoid nonsense being cooked up by liberals, who are running out of real worries [ 9-plus percent unemployment] in order to concentrate on phony ones. As I accurately observed in a post on one of WEAVERS seeds, observe closely that it is now ''The Republican Congress'' as if there were no such thing as Senate MAJORITY Leader and Democrat Harry Reid. There will be no ''shutdown'' of OWS media [ oh to be sure, they will be ripped off for the funds to create such ads, as what occurred with Occupy Portland, when one of their own abscounded with over 20 grand set aside for such purposes into parts unknown], and it hardly makes any case for logical thought among liberals when we find that the scheme, which is primarily concentrated on the huckstering of phony product or service, and the protection of intellectual property , is sponsored by Democrats. And not the parallel-universe ''Republican Congress''.....

This is more paranoid nonsense being cooked up by liberals,

It is cause you conservatives make us so jealous since you cornered the market on paranoid nonsense with the claims about the President not being a citizen, being a Muslim, being a Marxist, etc. This is, however, utter nonsense. It completely misrepresents the bill being proposed. I have not seen such blatant attempts to misrepresent the content of proposed legislation since the health care debate with the nonsense about death panels, coverage for illegals and abortion.

Video Suggests Another Approach to Occupying Wall Street – Send Them Garbage

There ARE other ways to participate

First of all, anyone voting for this bill is worse than a terrorist. Second, even if this bill did pass, it would be ineffectual. As much as I hate corporations having tons of power, well... they do. And I have a feeling Facebook and Google, among others, would simply disregard this law, and so would their users. All this would do is anger everyone and weaken the government's legitimacy and respect.

However, the bill I refer to is hypothetical. Apparently the bill in question has nothing to do with this. In fact, it was proposed by a Democrat.

Look, if you we to be able to complain about misleading right-wing seeds then we can't sink to their level. You're ruining the look of the entire left.

Yup, before Twitter, Facebook, and iPhones there was no protesting of any kind. At all. Ever.

God forbid people would have to start using their phones for something besides playing Angry Birds, rediscover the FAX machine, and locate their local Post Offices.

Oh this is too good.

The misinformation is just ripe in this seed.

First, it is a SENATE bill (that is what the S means in S 968), so it was introduced in the DEMOCRAT controlled senate.

Second, as others pointed out, it was sponsored by a DEMOCRAT, not a Republican.

Third, it makes it illegal to stream unlicensed content. A video you make yourself of a public activity that isn't a reproduction of a copyrighted act is not unlicensed. YOU own the license to such material.

Fourth, the bill was introduced in May, or MONTHS before the OWS protest started.

This seed is a steam pile of misleading information being spun up to try and attack the party that didn't even write the damn thing.

And the best part of all this. When these facts are pointed out to some people they are so blinded by paritsanship and party loyalty they still want to blame Republicans for it. Or at least refuse to correct their earlier misdirected attacks.

mountainmike-1199289 wrote:

Starting to look more like pre WW II Hitler Germany. The Reich wing definitely needs a slap down in the 2012 elections.

Heh. The "Reich Wing". Good one. 8-)

Looks like you've been punked MS C

I found a link, tried to post it here, and the link doesn't work. I would definitely want to see more information on this.

How would this affect the posting of videos taken in public, of public protests. Need to read the bill before passing judgment

You would look less foolish if you actual researched the bill before posting. I have and as far as I can tell it looks pretty bad. The claim that the bill is intended to protect intellectual property rights just doesn't pass the BS test.

The reality is this bill is not about protecting intellectual property, this is about taking direct control over information distribution, under the pretext of protecting intellectual property rights.

The bill is so broadly written that it gives broad sweeping powers to the government to shut down web sites without warning and before the site id notified and can defend themselves all merely on the suspicion that a one of their users might have uploaded media that contained copyrighted IP.

That means if they even think a website user has uploaded copyrighted material to say Youtube The government can shut down YouTube without warning. It makes site owners responsible for all their user uploaded content. All it takes is one mistake and you could get slapped with a freggen FELONY!!!

Now I'm a former LEO and I take felony charges very seriously. You could lose your right to own a home, vote and even own a gun simply because made the simple mistake of having the TV on in the background when you skyped your wife.

The punishment must fit the crime and this seems very excessive. In what world would anybody support stripping a felow citizen of their constitutional rights simply because they were listening to background music while they were using skype to talk to a buddy.

As far as I can tell that's exactly how broad reaching this legislation is.

Seriously you could be charged with a felony if you post a first person video on YouTube or video conferences say with SKYPE and forget to turn the TV of in the background. How nuts is that ?

Or how about someone shooting live video of a demonstration such as OWS and someone else walks by you with a radio on. If you post that video on YouTube you're now guilty of a felony.

S.978 is the bill that would make it a felony to stream unauthorized copyrighted content over the web, with a penalty of up to five years in prison. As many internet rights groups have noted, the bill is so broadly written that it could put people in jail for things like performing cover songs on YouTube or having the wrong song in the background of your video. In the Senate version, illegal streaming of copyrighted content would have to consist of “10 or more public performances.” The new House versions revises that down to “1 or more public performances.” If this becomes law and you accidentally post copyrighted material to YouTube, you better figure it out quick and take it down before you get a single view.

http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/2413-Congressional-Leaders-Intro-Massive-E-PARASITE-Act

Even artists and content creators oppose the bill.

http://www.phphosts.org/blog/2011/10/new-letter-from-artists-content-creators-against-protect-ipe-parasite-act/

New Letter From Artists & Content Creators Against PROTECT IP/E-PARASITE Act
Posted on October 27, 2011 by News

The big entertainment industry gatekeepers have been pushing PROTECT IP and now the new E-PARASITE bill, pretending that it’s got the support of content creators. That’s why you see bogus grassroots operations pop up, whereby the big gatekeepers, who do everything they can to not pay content creators, pretend that the laws that make them more powerful are actually about protecting artists.

But real artists and content creators recognize that PROTECT IP/E-PARASITE is really about shutting down the innovations and new technologies that have given them more control over their own destiny, a greater ability to connect with fans and many new ways to make money. And that’s why they oppose this attempt by the US government to give the gatekeepers more control to hold back artists. A new letter from actual content creators is making the rounds, pointing out that contrary to the claims of the legacy gatekeepers, they do not support censorship bills like PROTECT IP/E-PARASITE, but prefer to believe in the power of new innovation to provide them with more opportunities.

More reading

http://www.i-policy.org/2011/10/blacklist-bill-allows-feds-to-remove-websites-from-internet-.html

http://www.crowdsourcing.org/document/dont-let-hollywood-break-the-internet-with-the-protect-ip-act-/7603

Even Michele Bachmanns of all people opposes the bill

http://www.oncallpros.com/2011/10/14/michele-bachmann-comes-out-against-protect-ip/

You would look less foolish if you actual researched the bill before posting

You should have heeded your own advice.

All it takes is one mistake and you could get slapped with a freggen FELONY!!!

There are absolutely no criminal enforcement provisions in this law. NONE. Can you copy and paste the parts you claim do this?

Or the provisions that would allow the government to shut down youtube for allowing copyrighted material to be posted?

The law simply does not allow for the dire consequences you describe.

There are absolutely no criminal enforcement provisions in this law. NONE. Can you copy and paste the parts you claim do this?

The new legislation is made up of two bills S.968 and S.978 which are being merged.

The law simply does not allow for the dire consequences you describe.

S.978 - Commercial Felony Streaming Act. A bill to amend the criminal penalty provision for criminal infringement of a copyright, and for other purposes.

Open congress summery

Makes unauthorized web streaming of copyrighted content a felony with a possible penalty of up to 5 years in prison.

S.978 is the bill that would make it a felony to stream unauthorized copyrighted content over the web, with a penalty of up to five years in prison. As many internet rights groups have noted, the bill is so broadly written that it could put people in jail for things like performing cover songs on YouTube or having the wrong song in the background of your video. In the Senate version, illegal streaming of copyrighted content would have to consist of “10 or more public performances.” The new House versions revises that down to “1 or more public performances.” If this becomes law and you accidentally post copyrighted material to YouTube, you better figure it out quick and take it down before you get a single view.

Oh snap don't you just hate it when that happens :)

I read only the civil enforcement bill. Having read the other one now, what is your problem with making it a crime to steal? All that the criminal bill does is extend to the internet the laws that already make it a crime to steal other people's property. What is wrong with a law against stealing? The idea it could result in people going to jail for accidently having a song on in the background of a video or for posting a cover of a song is ludicrous. All criminal laws require proof of criminal intent. This law is no different. When you look that these laws in a vacuum, without any understanding of the existing criminal laws and laws that protect intellectual property, you might reach the silly conclusions the author the article has reached. If you understand intellectual property and criminal laws, these horror stories are far fetched.

And your interpretation of the civil enforcement provisions are also exaggerated. Do you know what is required to obtain a preliminary injunction; what the burden of proof is? It is high. It is very difficult to obtain one. The government cannot just step in, it has to go to a judge and prove the infringement and that it is ongoing and not likely to stop without action.

Oh, I thought this article was coming out of China or repressive countries in the Middle East.

Heck of a job, America.

What part of intellectual property is it so hard to understand? The law will do nothing to stop people from posting things protected by the First Amendment. The intellectual property of others is not so protected. You cannot appropriate the work of others. That is all that this law does. Ever hear of the First Amendment? Is there some provision in here that suspends that amendment as it pertains to the internet? Of course not. The horror stories people are posting will not happen because of the First Amendment. It will prevent the overreach that people claim will occur.

What part of intellectual property is it so hard to understand? The law will do nothing to stop people from posting things protected by the First Amendment. The intellectual property

If you actually believe this legislation is intended to protect intellectual property, and that it won't have any impact whatsoever on the free distribution of news and information over the internet then there's nothing more I can really say to you. As far as I'm concerned you have demonstrated that you lack any foresight. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink. And it looks like you've just proven that.

Maybe my background in law enforcement has made me a bit cynical. But as I look back thorough history. I reminded of all the seemingly well intentioned legislation that has been passed under the false pretext of protecting the american people or american busness only to see it abused and misused. And this legislation my misguided friend is ripe for abuse. Unfortunately people like you refuse to see it, until it's too damn late to do anything about it.

Once this legislation is passed the Government will have the power it need to force sites such as Youtube to remove vast amounts of historical news fotage regarding things such as OWS, the Tea Party, Presidential debates, Police brutality videos......................

Oh and the concerns I have don't stop there. The list is endless. Any video clip that originated in a news broadcast or came from a police cars dash cam or police security cameras comes under comes under this legislation broad sweeping authority , Doesn't it ? after all can't they claim ownership. Or are you saying that they can't claim IP ownership for these videos.

How about Police brutality videos captured by store surveillance cameras. Like I said if you can't see how this legislation can be misused and abused to control the free flow of information while protecting government and corporate news interests then all I can say is once again you have to much faith in the government and lack foresight.

Did you know that young students that come here from china have never even heard of the protests in Tiananmen square. How could they, The Chinese government forces Google to block it! sound familiar? If this legislation passes I fear future generations of Americans will be just as blind to our own counties history, After all they will only know what they are allowed to know. They will only see what they are allowed to see.

Don't fool yourself, this legislation is being sold under a false pretext, It has nothing to do with honestly protecting intellectual property and everything to do getting the governments foot in the door in controlling the free distribution of information.

Will our future generation ever see videos such as this on

(kind of reminds me of what just happened in Oakland)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s00-OoZAWno

or will this legislation give government the tools it needs to rewrite history?

Or how about this one?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STHDUHFE4Tg&feature=related

or this one?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTMPZh0H0_g

Or this one?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yk_n-C5S8g4&feature=related

Or how about these?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dy1z8lWdaKk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibSwITK4jjQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYMKyJRAabE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5MSdORQI_U&feature=related

The list is endless. Exactly who owns the intellectual property rights for those videos? Who's permission do you need to get to post these videos?

If you don't get permission will you be charged with a felony? Will Youtube risk it ?

I forgot to post this as an example as well.

The government is already trying to force Google to remove police brutality videos. Who owns those videos? can this legislation be used to force Google to remove them, If not can it quietly be amended to do so after the initial legislation is passed. You know like quietly attaching an amendment to a defense spending bill.

Google Denies Requests To Remove Videos of Police Brutality

Or how about this Tennessee has just past new laws during the middle of an ongoing protest that bans people from posting videos of protests online that might be disturbing to others.

Yeah exactly who gets to decide whats disturbing ?

Change in rules worries Occupy Nashville protesters

Your career in law enforcement did not involve anything to do with intellectual property law, did it? I understand just fine what these laws are designed to do and what their reach is. You do not. None of the videos you posted, which I presume are all of various acts of police officers in public, involve intellectual property rights. This law is about things like songs, movies, books, poems and other forms of artistic expression which belong to the person who created them or who bought the copyrights. It does not apply to videos taken in a public place. It does not apply to what I just typed. You need to read both bills and then read the laws they reference, the Lanham Act and copyright laws in order to be able to understand. You seem to forget that we still have a First Amendment and to the extent anyone tries to use these laws to do what you mistakenly think they permit a government to do, the Courts will not permit it. No law passed by Congress can override the constitution. It is simply not remotely accurate to suggest that this law could result in someone being charged with a felony for posting a video they took of something that happened in public. Do you really think that the intent of this legislation is to impose what would be the most comprehensive and unprecedented violation of the First Amendnment ever attempted? You really think that Patrick Leahy introduced this to stop people from posting videos of protests, police misconduct? If you believe that, my uninformed friend, I cannot ever make you understand how wrong you are.

This law is about things like songs, movies, books, poems and other forms of artistic expression which belong to the person who created them or who bought the copyrights. It does not apply to videos taken in a public place.

Interesting? so are you actually claiming that Fox news wouldn't be able to claim intellectual property rights even if they had filmed exclusive video footage of a violent clash between OWS protesters and police. Or maybe filmed exclusive footage of a cop beating the hell out of 90 pound teenage protester ?

Just to be clear you're claiming that under this new legislation I could post a copy of said videos online at a site such as Youtube for archival and historical purposes and that FOX news could not claim intellectual property rights infringement and have those videos removed and me arrested and charged with a felony.

If that's what your claiming then I beleive you've actually read the same legislation I have.

Now I've posted this before but for everyone sake I'll post it again and clarify it a bit.

s.968 and s.978 were the original bills and the legislation I actually believe you're still referring too.

Now as usual the politicians are being extremely sneaky about this by making it as hard as possible to to track any changes to the legislation. Their most recent trick has been to merge those two separate bills together to form one house bill H.R.3261 which is now known as the (- E-PARASITE Act)

Since you previously weren't aware of the felony provisions of the legislation or the reduction in requirements for prosecution from 10 violations to 1 violation I'll go ahead and give you some time to review the merged legislation before commenting any further.

It's only 70 some odd pages long, but as with all legal documents it references a stack of other legislation that you'll also need to research. As far as I can tell I didn't see any exclusions for news footage or movie scenes filmed on public property. I also didn't seen any specifications to what specifically qualify as IP such as entertainment or news.... So as far as I can tell this revised legislation actually protects all claims to intellectual property.

Important Correction To the above post #1.58

"If that's what your claiming then I beleive you've actually read the same legislation I have"

Should have read

"If that's what your claiming then I believe you haven't actually read the same legislation I have.

Yup that's kinda a biggie! don't know how I missed it, Might have something to do with being up for over 30 hours straight.. Anyhow I'll check back after I get some rest. Hopefully it will give you enough time to review H.R.3261

if someone records somthing with thier equipment. that recording is owned by them. they can air it, or trash it. but they own it and no one has the rights to it but them. with that said if fox recorded something then they decide what to do with it. if they record something and someone with a cellphone records the same thing they both own their copy and the cellphone person can upload theirs with out fox being able to say anything about it. but if you steal fox's recording and upload it, then yes fox can have it removed..

IP rights are not hard to understand i deal with them for business and personal needs all the time.

I read the legislation. How you can say they are being sneaky about it when it is available online to anyone who can read is beyond me. And it is nowhere near 70 pages long. There are huge sections that have been deleted, i.e. no longer part of the bill. As for your question, right now, today, if you post a Fox news video that is copyright protected, you are in violation of that law. Fox can have it removed; usually simply by contacting the website and asking that it be removed. This law does not change that. What it does change is that when a website is created for the sole purpose of posting stolen content the DOJ or the victim can go to court and, if the meet the high burden of proof necessary, can have that website enjoined from continuing to steal other people's property. The idea that this law is directed at people posting videos of protestors is ridiculous. It is not true. It is false. All one has to do is read the statute AND actually understand the legal effect of the words in the statute. I have done that. You have not.

This is what this law is about. A statement from the unions that represent the artists on HR 3261:

American Federation of Musicians (AFM), American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA), Directors Guild of America (DGA), International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Moving Picture Technicians, Artists and Allied Crafts of the United States, Its Territories and Canada (IATSE), International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT), and Screen Actors Guild (SAG) today released the following statement:

“As the Guilds and Unions that represent more than 400,000 craftspeople, actors, technicians, directors, musicians, recording artists and others whose creativity is at the heart of the American entertainment industry, we applaud Congressman Lamar Smith (R-TX), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Ranking Member John Conyers (D-MI), and Congressmen Howard Berman (D-CA) and Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) along with several other Members of Congress, for introducing HR 3261, the STOP Online Piracy Act today.

“This legislation, a companion bill to the PROTECT IP Act currently in the Senate, will provide U.S. law enforcement agencies with the tools to protect American intellectual property, including the films, television shows and sound recordings created by our members, from foreign rogue websites that knowingly and deliberately engage in the illegal distribution of our content for profit.

“Left unchecked, these rogue websites threaten the vitality of the online marketplace by stealing the work of American innovators and undermining legitimate business. They profit by offering access to content that they had no role at all in creating or financing, and they threaten real jobs, not only for our members but for those with whom they collaborate on set and hundreds of thousands of others whose livelihoods are dependent on the economic health of our business. Without proactive measures like the STOP Online Piracy Act, rogues sites will continue to siphon away wages and benefits from members of the creative community, greatly compromising our industry’s ability to foster creativity, provide opportunities, and ensure good jobs.

“We thank Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Conyers, and Congressmen Berman and Goodlatte as well as the bill’s other cosponsors for recognizing through their action today that the works created by our members – the result of talent, creativity, collaboration and years of hard work – are not only valuable contributions to our culture but are worthy of being protected from rogue sites and the profiteers who operate them. We look forward to working with Chairman Smith, the cosponsors of the bill, and the members of the House Judiciary Committee to ensure that this important legislation moves forward.”

It is about stopping theft. Plain and simple. You oppose this, you support theft.

rumors are swirling

LOL

rumors are swirling alright

do people even read anymore....

lemmings.



It is about stopping theft. Plain and simple. You oppose this, you support theft

Really ? So in your logic, If I don't support this unethical legislation, I'm nothing more then a criminal ? HOW DARE YOU! I'm a retired LEO officer I risked my life protecting people like you and I take offence to your accusations.

By labeling those who disagree with you as Criminals YOU HAVE CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED THAT YOU LACK ANY SHRED OF INTEGRITY !

Furthermore you have shown that you have no real interest in intelligent discourse and have proven that you're only interested in villainizing those who disagree with you.

This is the typical actions of a zealot who can't win legitimacy for their argument based on truth or fact. Zealots in their desperation always seem to resort to distorting the truth and to personal attacks attempting to demonize others as criminals simply because they disagree with their opinion. Once again as a former LEO I am offended by your accusations that I support criminals because I don't agree with your opinion.

I don't support criminal theft of Intellectual property and I don't support redundancy. We already have plenty of laws on the books making IP theft a crime. This law is is being sold under a false pretext. It has very little support and the vast majority of people polled opposed it as being to broadly written.

Your unethical defense of this legislation make you appear to be nothing more than a disingenuous corporate zealot, Exactly how much stock do you own in Sony? Once again this law is unnecessary and it is being sold under a false pretext. Web sites such as Youtube and Goggle already require that users own the IP rights of videos they upload.

Again another example of your desperation and dishonesty is posting quotes from people claiming to be artists. The so called artist groups you quoted have already been exposed as being nothing more then corporate front groups. The true artists groups adamantly oppose this legislation.

New Letter From Artists & Content Creators Against PROTECT IP/E-PARASITE Act
Posted on October 27, 2011

The big entertainment industry gatekeepers have been pushing PROTECT IP and now the new E-PARASITE bill, pretending that it’s got the support of content creators. That’s why you see bogus grassroots operations pop up, whereby the big gatekeepers, who do everything they can to not pay content creators, pretend that the laws that make them more powerful are actually about protecting artists.

But real artists and content creators recognize that PROTECT IP/E-PARASITE is really about shutting down the innovations and new technologies that have given them more control over their own destiny, a greater ability to connect with fans and many new ways to make money. And that’s why they oppose this attempt by the US government to give the gatekeepers more control to hold back artists. A new letter from actual content creators is making the rounds, pointing out that contrary to the claims of the legacy gatekeepers, they do not support censorship bills like PROTECT IP/E-PARASITE, but prefer to believe in the power of new innovation to provide them with more opportunities.

http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/2413-Congressional-Leaders-Intro-Massive-E-PARASITE-Act

S.978 is the bill that would make it a felony to stream unauthorized copyrighted content over the web, with a penalty of up to five years in prison. As many internet rights groups have noted, the bill is so broadly written that it could put people in jail for things like performing cover songs on YouTube or having the wrong song in the background of your video. In the Senate version, illegal streaming of copyrighted content would have to consist of “10 or more public performances.” The new House versions revises that down to “1 or more public performances.” If this becomes law and you accidentally post copyrighted material to YouTube, you better figure it out quick and take it down before you get a single view.

S.968 is the “internet blacklist” bill that would give the Justice Department new power to block access to websites that they determine to be “dedicated to infringing activities.” Under the new House bill, the language describing which sites the government could shut down is expanded to any sites they think have “only limited purpose or use other than infringing.” Do you trust the government to determine that all the legal sharing on services like Dropbox and Rapidshare is of more than “limited” purpose?

Relax, buddy. I did not say you were a criminal. I said your position is one that defends theft, which it clearly is. And I do not care what you did previously. It is irrelevant to the validity of your opinion on this legislation. What would be more impressive and give your opinion some weight if you were an intellectual property attorney. I take it you are not. You also need to tone down the personal attacks on another's integrity. I said nothing about your integrity, only your capacity to understand this legislation. And the only zealot here is you. You read into this legislation things that simply are not there. I cite to the support from the artististic unions who represent the artistis whose material is being stolen and you cite to some organization created solely to oppose this law. I think that these unions, especially the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, would find it funny to be called "corporate front groups". So they are front groups for the corporations they have opposed with strikes in the past? That is your position. Did you even check to see who these groups are? Apparently not. Had you done that, you would not have made such a silly accusation about them. I think it is pretty clear what organization has more credibility here. It is also pretty clear that while your honesty and integrity may be in tact, your understanding of this law, intellectual property rights in general and the First Amendment are very limited. You would not be the first honest person who unwittingly took a position that really only benefitted thsoe who would steal from others.

if someone records somthing with thier equipment. that recording is owned by them. they can air it, or trash it. but they own it and no one has the rights to it but them

That might be true for entertainment such as music and movies or say personal videos or products such as software.

BUT !! I draw the line on videos that contain historical, political, humanitarian or national significance information. Once they choose to broadcast said information freely then by their own choice they have placed it in the public domain and that is where it should remain.

but if you steal fox's recording and upload it, then yes fox can have it removed..

This is where you and I again have a fundamental difference of opinion. I don't believe that any news organizational should be allowed to retain control of any video documentation of historical, political, humanitarian or national significance. This information by its very nature belongs to the people with whom it effects.

Once again when a news story of historical, political, humanitarian or national significance is broadcast it should becomes public domain. Furthermore If a news reporter or political commentator broadcasts a false or erroneous claim then we as the people should have the tools we need to archive it and expose them and hold them accountable. No one should be allowed to hide lies and disinformation regarding historical, political, humanitarian or national significance behind erroneous IP rights claims.

Unfortunately this legislation would allow them to do just that. It takes away the very tools that we as citizens need to document their lies and propaganda for future generations. It takes away the tools we need to hold the corporate news industry accountable for the accuracy of their broadcasts.

If this legislation is passed people such as Rush Limbaugh, And Michael Allen Weener (Savage) will be free to make any wild or distorted claim they wish without fear of being held accountable for those claims.

Again I have no problem with protecting the entertainment industry such as Movies and Music. I do have a serious issues when these laws are written in a way that prevents voters from archiving and/or distributing information that is vital to this nation.

When I was a young boy an old Greek immigrant I knew warned me about television news. He said its the worst thing that has ever happened to this country. Of course at the time I didn't believe him. He claimed that the day would come where they could say anything they wanted and not be held accountable for its accuracy.

He said they will be able to lie and distort the truth and since they own and control the media with which it is recorded you will have no recourse to prove they lied.

On the other hand when a story is printed in the news paper you can file a copy of that paper away and then use it as evidence whenever you need to. This new legislation will prevent people from exposing media lies by sharing the media that contains the lies. Once again its about control over the free distribution of information.

Relax, buddy. I did not say you were a criminal

Actually you might not have directly said it but you did infer it with weasel words.

You oppose this, you support theft

There is, and always has been a clear association between being a criminal and supporting criminal activity.

If I buy stolen property, I am supporting theft and that's why buying stolen property is a crime in itself. If the owner of a motel knows that prostitution is taking place in his establishment he can be charged with being a "Pimp"

So as you can see there is a clear association with supporting criminal activity and being a criminal yourself. So by accusing me of supporting criminal activity you are in effect inferring that I am a criminal.

I cite to the support from the artististic unions whose materials is being stolen and you cite to some organization created solely to oppose this law

Yeah and I would like anyone who steals my Strawberry cheesecake recipe to be charged with a felony for violating my IP rights.

Again you have posted quotes and links to corporate front groups with official sounding name, who don't really represent the new generation of artists and content creators.

These old groups are part of a dying business industry reliant on an outdated business model. They are desperately attempting to use legislation to thwart progress and save a dying industry based on an outdated business model loaded with parasitical fat cats who have spent their lives getting rich on the backs of the artists.

Unfortunately the entertainment industry fat cats who have been screwing artists and entertainers for years refuse to embrace new technology and move on to the 21st century because they know it means an end to their free ride.

You can't stop progress and the way media is distributed is changing and empowering artists with the ability to market and distribute their own products.

They no longer need or want a parasitical entertainment industry comprised of dinosaurs and fat cats to be in control of their art. Today young artists want to be in control of their own art, They don't want to be forced like their predessors to sign away the rights to their art to media mogul fat cats who are the real parasites in the entertainment industry

This legislation is being pushed by large media corporations and their unions and front groups as a means of fighting back against independent artists or artists wishing to marketing their own products.

Unfortunately that's a totally different argument and not the most significant problem with this legislation.

My real concern is the disastrous effects this law will have on the public's ability to archive and distribute information of historical, political, humanitarian or national significance.

If this law was in place during the 60's and 70's it would have had dire consequences on the civic rights moment. Furthermore if this law pass's it will make it illegal to host almost all of the historical video footage of the atrocities which occurred during the civil rights moment. It will also make it a crime to post police dash cam videos of police brutality.

I'l give you an example of the parasitical nature of the music industry fat cats.

One of my adopted sons has a very good singing voice. At one time he had a webpage where fans could go and watch videos of his performances that were done at some local clubs. He was doing some renditions of some old George Jones and Johnny cash hits and the site became very popular.

He wasn't selling anything or even asking for donations it was merely for fun. We were contacted by the RIAA and threatened with legal action because the songs he was performing were "copyrighted"

Before we where even contacted they had already contacted our Service provider which took down the site. They then hit us with a legal suit. Now of course they were willing to drop the case if my son signed a contract with them. So you see they had no problem with him actually performing these songs as long as he signed a very restrictive contract with them which among other things gave them sole control over distribution as well as a massive percentage of the proceeds.

The way the music industry manipulates people and laws is a perfect example of unethical people generating vast amounts of wealth by exploiting the labors and talent of others.

The fat cats in the music industry did not write these songs. They acquired control over the rights to these songs through unethical means by forcing song writers and artists to sign away their rights The only way they got away with this was because back in those days they were the only game in town. They had complete controlled over everything from the radio stations to the recording studios. Today anyone can record a song and market it and this threatens the parasitical existence of the music industry fat cats

That's no longer the case, Progress and technology has reshaped the playing field and today's artists and song writer's no longer need these parasites. This legislation is an example of the desperation of the parasites in the entertainment industry. They are desperately trying to thwart progress and hold on to a dying industry in which they are the real parasites.

Blaze. You really need to control yourself. Your comments repeatedly cross the line with hateful and wholly untrue comments. Any way, keep telling lies and making foolish comments, like comparing the unions I cited to corporate front groups. That you keep repeating that inanity tells me and anyone else who reads this all we need to know about your willingness to say things are absolutely and completely untrue to try to defend your position. I am not sure why this sticks in your craw so much. Most likely, because you just do not understand it. There may be problems with the language as it exists; problems that can be addressed as it is debated. To the extent that there are attempts to misuse it as you fear, we have something called the First Amendment. We have groups like the ACLU who will not allow the things you fear. We have Courts that will not permit the extension of this law to the things claimed by you and others who posted more rational attacks on the law. It is funny, but the biggest problem I had with this seed that made me comment is the wholly misleading article and headline which suggests that this law will somehow prevent the use that protestors like those with OWS from using the internet to advance their cause.

Having read your second comment, I now understand your irrational approach to this issue. Honesty would have had you disclosing your personal bias at the beginning of your rants about this law.

Blaze. You really need to control yourself. Your comments repeatedly cross the line with hateful and wholly untrue comments

The only one here who is being deshonist is you. You have continually lied about the scope of this legislation, and then when called on you resorted to personal attacks and innuendo

Hollywood's lobbyists have launched a bold new anti-piracy offensive in Washington that will face strong opposition from Internet companies and users who worry it goes too far and jeopardizes free speech rights

And

Disastrous IP Legislation Is Back – And It’s Worse than Ever

We've reported hereoften on efforts to ram through Congress legislation that would authorize massive interference with the Internet, all in the name of a fruitless quest to stamp out all infringement online. Today Representative Lamar Smith upped the ante, introducing legislation, called the Stop Online Piracy Act, or "SOPA,"And

that would not only sabotage the domain name system but would also threaten to effectively eliminate the DMCA safe harbors that, while imperfect, have spurred much economic growth and online creativity.

And

As with its Senate-side evil sister, PROTECT-IP, SOPA would require service providers to “disappear” certain websites, endangering Internet security and sending a troubling message to the world: it’s okay to interfere with the Internet, even effectively blacklisting entire domains, as long as you do it in the name of IP enforcement. Of course blacklisting entire domains can mean turning off thousands of underlying websites that may have done nothing wrong. And in what has to be an ironic touch, the very first clause of SOPA states that it shall not be “construed to impose a prior restraint on free speech.” As if that little recitation could prevent the obvious constitutional problem in what the statute actually does

And

it gets worse. Under this bill, service providers (including hosting services) would be under new pressure to monitor and police their users’ activities. Websites that simply don’t do enough to police infringement (and it is not at all clear what would qualify as “enough”) are now under threat, even though the DMCA expressly does not require affirmative policing. It creates new enforcement tools against folks who dare to help users access sites that may have been “blacklisted,” even without any kind of court hearing. The bill also requires that search engines, payment providers (such as credit card companies and PayPal), and advertising services join in the fun in shutting down entire websites. In fact, the bill seems mainly aimed at creating an end-run around the DMCA safe harbors. Instead of complying with the DMCA, a copyright owner may now be able to use these new provisions to effectively shut down a site by cutting off access to its domain name, its search engine hits, its ads, and its other financing even if the safe harbors would apply.

And then we have this from cnet

Because the Stop Online Piracy Act is 79 pages long and amends existing law in subtle ways, it will take some time to analyze how it differs from the PROTECT IP Act, which earlier introduced the notion of an Internet "death penalty."

That measure sought to give the U.S. Department of Justice the power to seek a court order against an allegedly infringing Web site, and then serve that order on search engines, certain Domain Name System (DNS) providers, and Internet advertising firms. Those organizations, in turn, would be required to make the target site effectively "invisible" to Web users.

That approach, which would mark a fundamental break with the "end-to-end" design of the Internet, has drawn fire from Internet engineers and security specialists. The Stop Online Piracy Act follows the same model.

Some changes: search engines are explicitly defined; foreign Web sites are treated differently than domestic Web sites; language to ensure at least some portions survive a constitutional challenge has been added; the general-purpose law used to prosecute even not-for-profit copyright infringements has been made more Draconian.

And this

A new bill in Congress makes posting a video containing any copyrighted work a felony-- with up to 5 years in prison.

But wait... didn't Justin Bieber get famous by posting YouTube videos of himself singing copyrighted R&B songs? Yep.
If this bill passes, he could get 5 years in jail.

5 years in jail, for singing!

The maximum sentence would be five-years, just for singing a cover! Other online video "crimes" could include: videos of a school play, a professional baseball game, or videos with incidental background music (even just a ringtone). Nuts, right? yup a copyrighted ringtone on your phone could get you 5 years.

Of course according to you none of this is true. PROVE IT!

This is a perfect example of the type of video that could get you thrown in jail for 5 years

here is Justin sing With You

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=eQOFRZ1wNLw#!

You claim I'm lying. I say your lying and I'm challenging you to prove that I'm wrong about this.

Show us the exclusion in the legislation that would prevent them from charging Justin with a felony.

It's such a concern that even Justin has a Website dedicated to it. Yet according to you all the artists support this legislation. well here you go I've just showed you one of the worlds brightest and fastest growing talents and he's adamantly apposed to it. This page has over 35 million views. According to the new legislation it would only take one view to be charged with a felony.

Once again prove the people making this claim are wrong !

Justin and his fans don't seem to think I'm wrong

http://freebieber.org/

ok so blaze supports theft cause he has a right to steal other peoples hard work. record companies hire artists to produce them a product and in the contract it states who owns what. a song has typically 3 differant owned componates. 1 being the words. 2 being the music, and 3 being the royalties. now you can with permission use someones song but you will have to pay royalties. i have a friend that is a dj and he pays alot of money to play other peoples music.

just cause someone can sing doesnt mean they have the right to steal other peoples hard work. have him write and produce his own works and then he can be the owner clean and clear and a lot of artists do that.

and sorry but news people invest alot of money in their equipment and people so yes they have a right to own what they have paid for if you have something you want saved for all time then record it yourself with your own equipment, time and money then you can say what happens to it. but it does not become public doman till the owner releases the rights on it. i think there are some great movies they should be seen by everyone so does that give me the right to just steal it and show it for free to everyone. no you can not do that its called theft. there is nothing in any law that gives the pubic rights to anything no matter how they feel about it.

yes most news companies release saved items that are historical and most allow for places like schools to use most of their stuff for free.

ok so blaze supports theft cause he has a right to steal other peoples hard work

Using your logic I could say you support rape because you have the tools to rape. Or I could say you support police brutality because you want to give them the tools to hide it from the public.

sorry but news people invest alot of money in their equipment and people so yes they have a right to own what they have paid for if you have something you want saved for all time then record it yourself with your own equipment, time and money then you can say what happens to it. but it

That's one of the most asinine comments I have ever read

Example.

A huge portion of the 911 videos were shot by the news media. In your world our children would never see those videos simply because the news media could demand they be removed and then demand a licensing fee. I have no problem for licensing fees for entertainment but not for videos of historical or national significance

Furthermore, as far as their tools are concerned, that's part of the cost of doing business. They are compensated for their expenses by allowing them nearly free use of public airwaves. Those airwaves belong to you and me and no one should be allowed exclusive use to any portion of it. TV and radio is an exception that we have allowed. They are allowed to broadcast entertainment and collect advertising revenue in exchange for them providing a public service and that public service is the news. In other words they are allowed to profit by having exclusive use of a natural resource that belongs to everyone.

You might know this but news stations are licensed by the FCC as a PUBLIC SERVICE. They are allowed to freely use public airwaves in exchange for the service they provide. And part of that service is in fact the news. The fact that they are broadcasting the news over publicly owned airwaves puts their broadcast in the public domain.

If the news industry is going to start taking control of video documentation of historical or national significance then maybe we the people should start changing a per minute fee for their use of public airwaves. This idea that the news media should be allowed profit by the free use of the public airwaves and also retain control over documentation of historically or national significant events is insane. The cost of their equipment is more then offset by the fact that they get free use of a vast portion of a resource that belongs to all of us.

the airwaves, really. they use them cause they invest in large equipment. if you dont like it i suggest you start your own tv/news station and produce all your own stuff. yes they filmed things like 911 and so did many other people. and yes if they dont want to use something they filmed they dont have to and they dont have to give you permission to use it.

and sorry but using a song owned by someone else is directly stealing its nothing like your rape analogy. its not a tool. its theft. straight up theft. people need water to survive does that mean i can go into any store and just take a bottle of water?

the airwaves, really. they use them cause they invest in large equipment

Yes the airwaves!! Using your logic I should be able to drive simply because I invest in a car.

I do know something about communications. I worked for years as a broadcast engineer for a large network TV station.

The airwaves are a finite natural resource I should know I hold several FCC licenses. One of which is a GROL which is the highly coveted General Radioteliphone Operators Licence. This means that if I so choose I could start my own TV or radio station.

Of course since I own and operate my own small chain of restaurants I really have no interest in doing that. But that licence was a life saver when I first got started in the restaurant business.

Back when I first started out there were times I was working several jobs just to make payroll and one of those jobs was as a broadcast engineer. There were times I was working 3 jobs just to meet payroll, how I never killed myself I'll never know. There were times I was working around high voltage transmitted tubes after being up for 20+ hours. Those things are so dangerous that if you so much as get too close to the wrong component you will be dead before you hit the ground. It was common for me to go 36+ hours with no sleep, so like I said how I never killed myself I'll never know.

Whats funny is that I became so accustom to it, that I still do it to this day. Right now I'm going on 24+ hours with no sleep. I regularly go 2 days with maybe only a 20 min nap. How do you think I run a small chain of 5 restaurants and a small electronics repair company and sit here and chat on the computer.

people need water to survive does that mean i can go into any store and just take a bottle of water?

Actually I do know something about that too. When I got out of the military I went directly into the police academy thinking it would be a great career. As a result I learned quite a bit about law. I also learned that there was so much corruption in law enforcement that it boggled my mind. I could only take it for a few year after that I would rather wash dishes then be a cop and that's what I did. Anyhow a very little known Federal law requires business to provide free water if someone is in need.

Quit a few years ago 3 people died off the highway in the middle of a desert after their car broke down. To make matters worse they were robbed by someone who appeared to be stopping to help them.

They managed to walk several miles to a gas station where the greedy owner refused to give them water or let them use the phone because they had no money (remember they had been robbed).

Well after the owner kicked them off the property they tried to continue on but died on the way. The gas station owner was eventually charged with felony manslaughter.

As a result if you own a business within a certain distance of an interstate you are now required by law to provide free water to anyone who needs it. Kind of ridicules that in a nation that claims to be founded on Christianity we actually had to resort to making it a law to give thirsty people water.

i would be interested in seeing what law requires them to give you free water. i know california made a law requiring them to provide free water and air to paying customers. and i looked and i think AZ might have a law also but its dependent on the temp. so please enlighten us on this law your refering to.

but either way you look at it. someones property is theirs to do with as they wish, no one is allowed to just take it. thats called theft. you may feel some things should be public doman but in reality it isnt. and who decides that should be legally stolen? you me. bob the builder? what one person decides should be another may think it shouldnt be.

who decides that should be legally stolen

Who decided it was theirs in the first place.

You can't steal something that wasn't their's legally in the first place. The news media might like to claim it's theirs. But !! the fact is the news media is given free use of a public resource for which they profit heavenly from in exchange for the public service of documenting these events for the people they affect. Therefor the documentation of news events the news media records belongs to the people it effects as well as the people who provide the resources they freely use to make a profit.

Furthermore, how can you seriously try and claim that the news media owns the rights to documentation of events that occur in public by the public and that effect or affect the public in general. Does the news media get signed releases from every single individual at say a car accidents they report on? Do they pay everyone they interview at these car accidents. Exactly how do support your claim that they own the intellectual property rights of recorded public events that they had absolutely no direct involvement in creating.

Does the News media hire stunt drivers and stage and create the accidents they reported on. Did the news media create 911? Did the news media create the civil rights movement, Did the News media create the tea party events or the OWS events? Again exactly how do you support your claim that they retain intellectual property rights to documentation of events they did not create.

What the giant news media corporations are now trying to do through unethical lobbying is take control of something they have no right to control while still retaining the free use of a public resource to profit from it.

If they want to claim intellectual property rights of events they did not create and then use that claim to retain control of the documentation of public news events while also profiting from it. That means they are no longer providing a public service and they should be forced to pay the tax payers for the resources they were given free use of in exchange for providing that public service.

sorry but they are not claiming rights to the events. they are claiming rights to their recording of the events. if you have a recording of the same event then you own that recording and they own theirs. how hard is it to understand. and yes the news media has been found guilty of creating events.