SOPA Opposition. Put your money where your mouth is

[Alyeska]

I don't suppose I am the only person who is dismayed by SOPA and PIPA. These laws threaten the ingregity of the internet on a variety of levels. Ars Technica today has an incredible series of articles on the subject. That is all they have written today. One article is about an independent game studio called Red Five.

Red Five has decided they are going to take a stand. They are refusing to go to E3 this year. E3 is only about the biggest video game convention in the world. Massive media coverage for anyone who can get there. E3 is run by the ESA. The ESA supports SOPA/PIPA.

What we need to do is show our opposition to SOPA/PIPA. Calling your senators and representatives is a very good start. But we need to do more. The MPAA and RIAA are some of the largest driving forces behind these proposed bills. The MPAA itself has admitted to having significant influence over provisions within the law. We need to vote with our wallets.

It is very simple, but you need significant willpower.

No more TV. Almost every single TV station supports SOPA. NBC, CBS, FOX, you name it. Oh, but you watch USA or Spike. Sorry, thats owned by NBC. Have your cable TV cancelled. Stop buying seasons on DVD unless the show specifically opposes SOPA. Mythbusters opposes SOPA, so go buy their DVDs. Stick with broadcast TV, no cable.

No more movies. Stop going to the theater. Stop buying the Blu-Rays and DVDs. Cancel your Netflix subscription. Only stick with independent film makers and publishers that oppose SOPA.

No more music. Stop buying CDs. Stop buying MP3s. You can listen to the radio. If the artist opposes SOPA and sells their music directly, you can buy it.

No more video games from companies that support SOPA. You have to be very careful here. Even if the developer opposes SOPA, the publisher might. Activision supports SOPA. Sorry, that means no Diablo, no Starcraft, no Call of Duty. EA has removed their support of SOPA but has not renounced it. EA is still a member of the ESA... Developers are more likely to oppose SOPA than publishers. If a developer sells directly through something like Steam and it bypasses the publisher, go for it.

No more magazines or news papers. Time Warner supports SOPA. Stop buying and stop all subscriptions. Both physical and internet. Stick with only freely readable content, and use add-block. Only if the news source opposes SOPA should you be willing to pay subscription.

And one final note. DO NOT PIRATE ANYTHING. For gods sake, you will utterly destroy any progress and semblance of an argument if you pirate anything. You become a hypocrite.

[Admiral Drason]

My rep is Michele Bachman so I worded an email as to accuse SOPA as big government only helping the "liberal media control our thinking." Too bad she doesn't read any of those emails because I bet she would buy into the liberal media conspiracy thing.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Emails don't register, Drason. Pick up a phone and vote with your voice. Or write a letter on paper and spend 41 cents getting your message to her.

[Alyeska]

My rep is Michele Bachman so I worded an email as to accuse SOPA as big government only helping the "liberal media control our thinking." Too bad she doesn't read any of those emails because I bet she would buy into the liberal media conspiracy thing.

Then Call Her. Seriously. It is that important. Make mention that 13 senators revoked support of the bill today. 11 of them are republican. Make it clear that conservatism demands a smaller government and this regulation will hurt small businesses.

[Admiral Drason]

Bachmans district office is only about a dozen blocks from my apartment, now I know she doesn't ever visit that office but what if I were to get some people over to the office and drop off written letters, I mean she should have staffers and they might relay whats going on to her. I don't know how much good it is since she is bat shit crazy but one can dream right?

[Alyeska]

Bachmans district office is only about a dozen blocks from my apartment, now I know she doesn't ever visit that office but what if I were to get some people over to the office and drop off written letters, I mean she should have staffers and they might relay whats going on to her. I don't know how much good it is since she is bat shit crazy but one can dream right?

Show up with the letters. Then strike up a conversation with the staffers. Tell them who you are and express your concerns.

[Rogue 9]

Bachmans district office is only about a dozen blocks from my apartment, now I know she doesn't ever visit that office but what if I were to get some people over to the office and drop off written letters, I mean she should have staffers and they might relay whats going on to her. I don't know how much good it is since she is bat shit crazy but one can dream right?

Do it, but for God's sake, don't tell her (or her staff) you'll never vote for her anyway; they only listen to you to garner your support, so they won't bother if they know they won't have it even if they do what you say.

[Dave]

I don't really do any of the rest, but a question:

No more music. You can listen to the radio.

What about internet radio? (Pandora, Last.fm, Grooveshark, Spotify)

If a developer sells directly through something like Steam and it bypasses the publisher, go for it.

How much does this bypass the publisher/developer? 100%? 50%? Which games are we talking about?
What if we support Steam because they charge good prices? (Prices we find acceptable, rather than $60 a game.)

What if we were hoping that Big Content would see these sales and lower their prices?

And one final note. DO NOT PIRATE ANYTHING. For gods sake, you will utterly destroy any progress and semblance of an argument if you pirate anything. You become a hypocrite.

Naturally.

I propose we also post alternatives, like Clearbits.net (free/legal/open content available via BitTorrent) and Jamendo (royalty free music).

Also, what about books? I mean, that's what I'll be left with at this rate (good thing I like reading), but which publishers are OK and which are supporting the same legislation?

EDIT: Answered my own question

[Alyeska]

What about internet radio? (Pandora, Last.fm, Grooveshark, Spotify)

Do you pay for the service? If you do you are directly supporting the MPAA and music companies that support SOPA.

How much does this bypass the publisher/developer? 100%? 50%? Which games are we talking about?
What if we support Steam because they charge good prices? (Prices we find acceptable, rather than $60 a game.)

Almost impossible to say. Some companies are relatively independent. They establish some publishing deals but retain ownership enough to have alternate distribution. Do your research. Got a favorite game? Well whats more important. That game, or the internet? Sacrifices have to be made. They will try and bribe you. It is your choice to accept it.

What if we were hoping that Big Content would see these sales and lower their prices?

It isn't about price. Do not let them bribe you. It is about integrity of the Internet.

I propose we also post alternatives, like Clearbits.net (free/legal/open content available via BitTorrent) and Jamendo (royalty free music).

Any LEGAL source of free content is perfectly acceptable.

Also, what about books? I mean, that's what I'll be left with at this rate (good thing I like reading), but which publishers are OK and which are supporting the same legislation?

I suggest you visit your local library.

[Dave]

What about internet radio? (Pandora, Last.fm, Grooveshark, Spotify)

Do you pay for the service? If you do you are directly supporting the MPAA and music companies that support SOPA.

No, I don't, but the website receives money from advertising revenue which is (presumably in part) used to pay the content providers.

I'm not asking you to make my decisions for me, I'm just trying to bring up potential issues.

[Alyeska]

What about internet radio? (Pandora, Last.fm, Grooveshark, Spotify)

Do you pay for the service? If you do you are directly supporting the MPAA and music companies that support SOPA.

No, I don't, but the website receives money from advertising revenue which is (presumably in part) used to pay the content providers.

I'm not asking you to make my decisions for me, I'm just trying to bring up potential issues.

How often are you really influenced by the advertising? And if you use add-blocking software, you even deny them automatic revenue.

And I apologize for being so direct. My intent is to provide information. I have drawn a line in the sand and I hope to see others do the same.

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

Bachmans district office is only about a dozen blocks from my apartment, now I know she doesn't ever visit that office but what if I were to get some people over to the office and drop off written letters, I mean she should have staffers and they might relay whats going on to her. I don't know how much good it is since she is bat shit crazy but one can dream right?

Michele Bachmann opposes SOPA you twit.

[Simon_Jester]

Well then, why not call her office, thanking her for opposing the bill?

[loomer]

I'm tempted to call my representative and tell him to SUPPORT the bill, just so I can watch as it does jack and shit and laugh at you overreacting morons.

Alas, my political will is too busy trying to do pointless things that nobody gives a damn about like save lives by ending the wars, fighting for Medicare for All, and doing what I can to save justice itself by preserving due process in this country.

Oh fuck off, you colossal twat. Shouldn't you be taking action against SOPA anyway, on the grounds that it's big government and you're a libertarian? Show some internal consistency.

[Alyeska]

I'm tempted to call my representative and tell him to SUPPORT the bill, just so I can watch as it does jack and shit and laugh at you overreacting morons.

The DMCA is already abuse by people making bad faith take down requests right now. Even over content that people don't even own. The proposals have even less judicial oversight are are encourage technology companies to assume guilt and comply. You get into more trouble using your legal right asking for review than you do for simply complying. I call bullshit and I am flat out telling you that you have to back up your claims. Prove that this is an over reaction. Prove that the doomsday scenarios won't happen.

Remember this. If the wording in a law allows it, it is legal. Period. Intent has no bearing on the law and it is a very rare judge who rules on that. Judges will rule on the technicalities of the law. And if the law allows something to happen, it will happen. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Alas, my political will is too busy trying to do pointless things that nobody gives a damn about like save lives by ending the wars, fighting for Medicare for All, and doing what I can to save justice itself by preserving due process in this country.

False Dilemma. Just because there are other issues does not mean this one is unimportant. Given the sheer amount of lobbying done on the behalf of the MPAA and the RIAA, this issue is very important to many people.

[Terralthra]

Remember this. If the wording in a law allows it, it is legal. Period. Intent has no bearing on the law and it is a very rare judge who rules on that. Judges will rule on the technicalities of the law. And if the law allows something to happen, it will happen. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

This is flat-out incorrect. While Trial Court judges rule on the wording of the law, Appeals, Superior, and the Supreme Court frequently refer to the legislative intent when decided disputed rulings.

Scholars agree that on the whole, the Court has made fairly frequent use of legislative history: from the late nineteenth century through the late twentieth century, it cited congressional reports in approximately one-third of its statutory interpretation cases, congressional debates in another 17%, and congressional hearings in another 13% of cases.

[Alyeska]

I've actually had this happen to me. You know what I did? Filed a counter-notice in a matter prescribed by law and had it cleared up very quickly. (of course this was little guy vs little guy)

The SOPA bill has similar provisions.

You know what the NFL did? They filed non-stop take down notices against an individual. And in a court argument they argued that even if the take down is not valid, the hosting service must still take it down and that the recipient has absolutely no recourse. So the NFL just kept filing takedown notices. Counter file, item goes back up. Send another takedown notice.

You're a fucking retard.

You seem to be under the impression this is optional. It is not. Debating Rule 5: Back up your claims.

Yeah, yeah. Blow up some people, authorize indefinite detention at the will of the King, and there's what, two threads about it on this board? No calls to action. No websites going dark.

It's as if Thanas is the only one of you that actually cares about things like civil liberties in law.

False Dilemma with a trace of Strawman.

But ohes noes enter a copyright bill. What is this, thread #9 on SOPA? You're the fourth poster to bitch about it too (spacemarine has half the threads himself).

How many websites went wild about it? Wikipedia, Google, Reddit. There's chats in the internet about all kinds of little sites doing it.

Congresspeople are being called off the fucking hook about it.


It's disgusting. Completely disgusting how selfish you people are. Take the lives of brown people? Meh. "Take" the "Internet" from spoiled nerds? HOLY SHIT THE WORLD IS ENDING.

False Dilemma fallacy.

PS: re the OP, I actually think it's a great idea, and it's what I've proposed in most the copyright threads I talk in. Don't like their rules? Just don't play their game.

Thats why I spent all day pondering the concept. Researching who supports what.

If SOPA dies, you should still ditch big media, since only if you actually remove their power (money) can you actually win this copyright war in general.

I want an apology or an admission of a mistake before I will start purchasing their product again. SOPA is only the beginning. I fully intend on pursuing a long term boycott and I am going to advocate this to others.

[Alyeska]

Remember this. If the wording in a law allows it, it is legal. Period. Intent has no bearing on the law and it is a very rare judge who rules on that. Judges will rule on the technicalities of the law. And if the law allows something to happen, it will happen. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

This is flat-out incorrect. While Trial Court judges rule on the wording of the law, Appeals, Superior, and the Supreme Court frequently refer to the legislative intent when decided disputed rulings.

Scholars agree that on the whole, the Court has made fairly frequent use of
legislative history: from the late nineteenth century through the late twentieth century, it
cited congressional reports in approximately one-third of its statutory interpretation cases,
congressional debates in another 17%, and congressional hearings in another 13% of
cases.

Interesting. This of course still leads to actual convictions before a remedy can be determined.

And why hasn't the Patriot Act been stricken? The intent was for terrorism, but over 99% of the convictions or use of the law has been against ordinary people or criminals.

[Terralthra]

Interesting. This of course still leads to actual convictions before a remedy can be determined.

And why hasn't the Patriot Act been stricken? The intent was for terrorism, but over 99% of the convictions or use of the law has been against ordinary people or criminals.

Please cite a source on that number.

And it hasn't been stricken because very few cases have been appealed to the Supreme Court, and those that have (Hamdi, e.g.) were about terrorists.

[Alyeska]

Please cite a source on that number.

Thats like asking to know how many grains of sand on a beach are red. While its a small number, its an insane amount of case law to sort through.

It is my understanding a great many laws that do get stricken, restricted, or otherwise modified by higher courts over issues of intent first need a test case. Someone who was clearly convicted or wronged by the law for using it against its intended intent. Meaning the overly broad law with a heart of gold was used by a prosecutor or organization for purposes strictly allowed by the actual letter of the law.

You yourself said that intent is taken into consideration, but only by higher courts. This tells me that trial judges will simply rule on the wording of the law which means there are convictions. So innocent people are getting wronged over misuse of a law because it was very poorly written so as to actually have said wording in the first place.

And it hasn't been stricken because very few cases have been appealed to the Supreme Court, and those that have (Hamdi, e.g.) were about terrorists.

Which leads me to believe that courts very rarely make rulings on issues of intent. The intent of the Patriot Act was very clear. But the overwhelming number of convictions or use of the law have not been used against terrorists. So why haven't lawyers been flocking to the higher courts on appeals of their convictions based on the intent of the law?

[Terralthra]

No, I'm saying "cite a source on how many Patriot Act cases aren't about terrorism." Because that's the second time you've repeated that claim without a shred of evidence for it.

[NoXion]

No, I'm saying "cite a source on how many Patriot Act cases aren't about terrorism." Because that's the second time you've repeated that claim without a shred of evidence for it.

How about THIS?

[K. A. Pital]

Yeah, yeah. Blow up some people, authorize indefinite detention at the will of the King, and there's what, two threads about it on this board? No calls to action. No websites going dark.

There's like dozens of threads about American war crimes, American imperialism, law subversion, non-extradiction, illegal detention, Geneva breaches etc. on this board and each of them grows to at least 8-10 pages. On the other hand, the SOPA issue is immediate, and the only person spamming threads has been SM93 (already told about it as well). Without him there'd probably be just one thread on all SOPA issues.

It's as if Thanas is the only one of you that actually cares about things like civil liberties in law.

Really? And I'm like, cheering Putin, Sarkozy or Obama whenever they subvert democratic mechanisms? I mean, you could say that Alyeska hasn't been exactly the most civil liberty-minded person here, but there's a whole lot of "us" who care.

It's disgusting. Completely disgusting how selfish you people are. Take the lives of brown people? Meh. "Take" the "Internet" from spoiled nerds? HOLY SHIT THE WORLD IS ENDING.

Yup, except some people consistently spoke against both the killing of "brown people" and against copyright in any of its disgusting incarnations as well. Like myself. And anti-copyright has been like #10 on the priority list, whereas anti-imperialism has been issue #1.

[Flagg]

It's disgusting. Completely disgusting how selfish you people are. Take the lives of brown people? Meh. "Take" the "Internet" from spoiled nerds? HOLY SHIT THE WORLD IS ENDING.

Could you ramp down the self-righteousness from 11?

[Thanas]

locked, see sticky thread.