Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
MikeyMicron
2251 Followers
marcochaoui yahya
4295 Followers
Kaostricks
3095 Followers
FacemanageBhupendra
17 Followers
dsmxJan 23, 2012
Both SOPA and PIPA basically gave anyone the ability to shutdown any website for almost no reason, with no chance of defending yourself, no accountability and no chance of compensation for being wrongfully taken offline.
That kind of bill has nothing to do with stopping piracy that is a direct attack against freedom of speech.
windsweep9Jan 23, 2012
Right, it's pretty clear that megaupload was essentially a criminal entity. Nothing good was put into jeopardy for bringing Kim Dotcom down. http://theairspace.net/events/fat-fierce-fearless/Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
icwydJan 23, 2012
He's not much different that Gingrich.
simawarFeb 18, 2012
http://zonaunikdanmenarik.blogspot.com/
flawedgamesJan 23, 2012
I agree. I mean they've shut down other sites like MegaUpload before. Is it getting harder to shut down these sites or what?
akumaatrJan 24, 2012
Sites that explicitly hosted warez have been taken down relatively easily historically, yes.
The problem in this case is that MegaUpload did not index their uploads (afaik). They were essentially just cloud storage.
Copyright gestapo didn't like the scale/efficiency (speed) in which things could be downloaded from their servers, I'm sure.
So, imo, this takedown operation is a little more than shady.
Closed AccountJan 23, 2012
It is pure draconian bulls**t, and this should not be tolerated as a law or even a proposal by a government official.
If Lamar Smith makes it beyond his current term I will have officially given up on all of this.
MPAA wants its money is what this is about because they are failing as a business otherwise.
dachipzJan 24, 2012
It allows the government (or anyone else with the money to grease the machinery) to shutdown any site anywhere, anytime. In short, it's legalizes censorship.
shoppingcartJan 26, 2012
Because if it were Megaupload.uk.co, or .ru, or .hk, etc... then they would not have been able to shut it down--as stated in the article
P.S. SOPA = SUCKA
zipkoJan 23, 2012
The shutdown of Megaupload required the cooperation of multiple foreign governments. The point of SOPA was to allow the US to shut down a site without any cooperation.
linksusJan 23, 2012
Im pretty sure SOPA would only shutdown the DOMAIN controlled by the US.
Simply host sites outside of the US and on a NON us registry.
mlw4428Jan 23, 2012
Except all of those domains still report to ICANN....which itself is a US based company.
lutianaJan 23, 2012
True, but it would force US DNS servers to block the DNS record of that domain. In effect causing it to vanish. This is, of course, easy to circumvent.
lutianaJan 23, 2012
True, but it would force US DNS servers to block the DNS record of that domain. In effect causing it to vanish. This is, of course, easy to circumvent.
Further, it makes the ISP responsible for access to the site in question.
johnpaul191Jan 24, 2012
The thing with SOPA is that if you hosted your site elsewhere, the US government could blacklist it and block US traffic from accessing it. You would lose traffic because **********.com would be blocked, the actual IP address would be blocked, and anyone that helps reroute traffic to that site would be blocked, and hit for committing a federal offense. Google would be in violation by linking the site, Comcast and Verizon would be in violation for allowing traffic to go through their pipes to get to the site. Yes, I am sure there would be a hacker workaround, which is why this is not going to end illegal filesharing.
From a pure business standpoint, it makes the ISPs and search engines become deputy police in a way. IIRC, the government wanted a way to automagically add sites to the blacklist (giving them access to the ISP's inner workings). As opposed to a weekly update to the blacklist, they wanted instant blacklisting from one central point. That destroys the internet's "web" structure where there is no one kingpin that could be pulled out to collapse parts of the internet. If nothing else, groups like Anonymous should prove that they could just as easily use that blacklist access and inject sites they don't like to shut them down. Talk about potential terrorism attacks on capitalism! Imagine if credit card processing sites were all blocked from internet traffic on black Friday? We might think it's funny, but the economic impact would be pretty huge. There would probably be actual riots in the stores.
ect5150Jan 23, 2012
Because politicians think they aren't doing their job if they aren't passing some new law. This is exactly why political gridlock can be a good thing.
iprintallJan 23, 2012
Wow. Someone else get's it, I thought I was the only one. They can't really solve anything so they just keep moving the goal posts. No one bothers to ask how well the previous laws work and only listen to the "turn a new corner" BS. No accountability at all.
paleoroundtableJan 23, 2012
It's more than that though. They make money by selling out the American people and the nation to the 0.1% who own the special interest PACS.
johnpaul191Jan 24, 2012
Let's be real. The politicians don't understand the potential pitfall of this. They didn't understand the patriot act either. They understand the lobbyists want SOPA, and listen to their one-sided pitch. Hell, I am not even sure if all the media groups understand what it's about. Whenever CNN reports on it, they add something about their parent company supporting it. How can we trust CNN to report on it fairly if their parent company thinks it's important to protect their profits (and not the people watching the news).
dennysongJan 23, 2012
"Sanchez pointed out that Megaupload's business model depends on hosting large volumes of user-submitted material without scrutinizing their contents." Doesnt this apply to facebook, youtube, flickr and every single website?
ognatovskiyJan 23, 2012
Well, not quite. Youtube tried to look for copyright content upon upload, and Facebook isn't quite open to the entire internet (most content is private).
However, if the feds decide to be ultra strict, any site with an upload functionality and at least one piece of copyright content on it can be shut down. That is a scary possibility.
dennysongJan 23, 2012
with SOPA, this could be the case. From all my knowledge, Megaupload only provides the plateform for file sharing. Lets see how they arrest Steve Ballmer when people start uploading stuff in skydrive.
ognatovskiyJan 23, 2012
Dropbox also comes to mind. I hope they have a strong legal team!
Schweppesale2Jan 23, 2012
It's not that simple.
Every file you uploaded to Megaupload was assigned a unique MD5 hash tag.
The resulting hash would be the same for every "identical" file uploaded to the site as they're all being run through the same hashing algorithm.
This would allow Megaupload to save server space.
Rather than store redundant data, the system would just return another unique link to the same file.
Megaupload also had a system in place which would allow copyright holders to "mark" infringing material.
Unfortunately, it didn't actually delete the file. Instead it would just remove whatever link had been provided by the copyright holder.
Which is kind of pointless.
dennysongJan 23, 2012
I see it as a advancement in algorithm design. which led them to jail?
Schweppesale2Jan 23, 2012
More like wanton disregard for the law.
ognatovskiyJan 23, 2012
You can argue that they didn't do enough to address the concerns of the copyright holders.
langfordJan 23, 2012
SOPA wasn't about piracy. It was never about piracy. It was about being able to kill emergent competition. Supporters like Rupert Murdock, don't like that you can read blogs and newspapers for free online instead of having to listen to his many many media outlets.
MrFrogyJan 23, 2012
Rupert Murdoch...? He supported it, but was not even close to being the primary beneficiary of that giant turd of a bill. I am not defending him at all, I am just saying that anyone who tries to paint these bills as being Dem OR Rep is playing games and trying to score points where there are none.
Both parties were signed onto this s**t, and the RIAA/MPAA were the primary pushers. Let's not degrade this discussion by trying to throw in the 'fox news is evil' card - this is not the place for it, and it takes away from the community of citizens who oppose it.
langfordJan 24, 2012
There was surely more names on the list. His is the one I remembered because this is the kind of thing he does. he does benefit tremendously, because he owns an ungodly number of media outlets that pretend to be separate from one another.
Mudlark48Jan 23, 2012
that just wrong. these bills do NOT just take the freedom of speech away, they are just killing it.
siliconfluxJan 23, 2012
Do not let these politicians fool you. SOFA and PIPA are SPECIFICALLY designed to interfere with free speech in a way that scares law abiding sites into simply being too afraid to even discuss about or link to pirated sites. They are preventing the spread of information thereby hoping they reduce the spread of piracy. The poorly worded nature of these bills arent an accident, they are intentional.
The irony in all of this is that these laws do not even remotely impact an intelligent user from obtaining whatever he/she wants to download illegally. You can shutdown a million Megaloads and pass a hundred SOFAs and you cannot stop a pirate until you change the morality and the system.
You have to make media more convient, accessible and reasonable to purchase, otherwise they will keep stealing it. In my opinion, things are improving, most especially with music, however, they need to more fully embrace digital rights management (for users) when it comes to streaming all movies, games, etc and address the blatant price-fixing on things when pruchased in stores.
For example, it shouldnt cost the same fixed $75-100 to purchase the exact same Lord of the Rings Trilogy theatrical edition that has been out for the past 10 years.
iclavdivsJan 23, 2012
I just got the LOTR trilogy for $15 at Walmart, but I see your point.
kurtvarnerJan 23, 2012
The task of shutting down Megaupload was an elaborate and complex process. With SOPA, this process would be drastically easier and the occurrence of shutting down websites would skyrocket.
mjm6783Jan 23, 2012
SOPA and PIPA are about television and printed news fighting to eliminate a free and open internet in order to retain some kind of control over mass media. The guise of "piracy legislation" is just a standard political branding, used to distract from the bill's actual intention.
ka5p3rJan 23, 2012
MPAA Directly & Publicly Threatens Politicians Who Aren't Corrupt Enough To Stay Bought.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120120/14472117492/mpaa-directly-publicly-threatens-politicians-who-arent-corrupt-enough-to-stay-bought.shtml
kyzzyxxJan 23, 2012
The propoganda steps it up a notch
http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/46098400/#46098400
ka5p3rJan 23, 2012
the mpaa,riaa is in control of this crap,same thing happen when the vcr come out.they said it would kill them.MPAA Directly & Publicly Threatens Politicians Who Aren't Corrupt Enough To Stay Bought.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120120/14472117492/mpaa-directly-publicly-threatens-politicians-who-arent-corrupt-enough-to-stay-bought.shtml
icwydJan 23, 2012
This is the same way we ended up paying them for decryption boards on CD hardware and a per writeable CD. We also paid them every time we rented a Tape or CD/DVD.
This is also why DAT tape never went anywhere and a plethora of other technologies.
johnnysoftwareJan 24, 2012
DAT turned out to be far too unreliable as a digital storage data backup mechanism. I heard from numerous sources of DAT backup tapes that failed without giving an error message even if the write operation failed to work. It was a miserable technology.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
icwydJan 24, 2012
http://www.retrothing.com/2006/05/whatever_happen.html
So why did the format fail? Well, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) was terrified by the prospect of consumers owning technology that could produce "perfect" digital copies of music. They lobbied hard for legislation to restrict digital recording and the Audio Home Recording Act was passed in 1992. The AHRA required serial copy protection in every consumer player to prevent users from making more than a single generation digital copy, and it required royalties on DAT machines and blank tape. The legislation was enough to slow adoption of DAT and it was eventually overtaken by the vast popularity of affordable recordable CD drives. DAT went on to enjoy brief success in the professional audio market and later became a de-facto standard for computer data backup.
I rest my case!
Vinyl wasn't very good either. Many errors due to dust and scratches.
fgerardJan 23, 2012
the recording industry doesn't get it...
WE WANT TO SHARE with each other, THAT is the POINT!
SHARING is exactly what the INTERNET is intended for.
war is peace
freedom is slavery
sharing is piracy
greed is good...
well f**k all that inhumane nonsense. if the greedy corporate bastards can't figure out an economic model that SUPPORTS SHARING - instead of criminalizing NORMAL human behavior - then tough s**t for the parasitic profiteers.
bluto36Jan 23, 2012
it sucks being a candlestick maker in a electric light world.
unless you can get control of the govt to pass laws to protect candle sticks and attack electric lights.
thats that the recording industry is doing paying congress to protect their candle making while attacking the electric light makers and users of the world.
johnnysoftwareJan 24, 2012
Except the end users you refer to are not making anything, just copying other people's makings.
Where they have that person or organization's permission in advance, personally or everyone does, there is nothing wrong with that.
I think you would agree that if someone stole copies of the latest Harry Potter manuscript when the authoress had her computer repaired, and put it onto the Internet and companies offshore started printing/selling copies of it then that would be a crime.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
wizzerkingJan 23, 2012
VOTE THESE A**HATS OUT AMERICANS VOTE Join Occupy, Make your Senator and Representative PAY
barackalypseJan 23, 2012
What does Wall Street have to do with an MPAA and Government power grab exactly?
treertJan 23, 2012
I just don't get it. Why would any american propose this bill in the first place?
ognatovskiyJan 23, 2012
Either because he is a fool who doesn't get it, or because he is a corrupt assh**e whose overlords hate the internet. Or both.
bluto36Jan 23, 2012
both
both my senators support it and voted for it and both are supposedly liberal freedom loving obama supporting Dems.
ya right
iclavdivsJan 23, 2012
Our lawmakers were 'lobbied' by the content industry, which is just a fancy way of saying 'bribed'.
johnnysoftwareJan 24, 2012
With quid pro quo now a matter of public record, it is indeed starting to look that way. Chris Dodd did invite public scrutiny with his recent comments
Both of SOPA/PIPA and retroactively, TARP, perhaps -- since he was chairman of Banking committee when the banking/financial bailouts were passed.
barackalypseJan 23, 2012
Because they want to have the power to do it without requiring any raid or compliance from the ISP hosting the site (which may be outside the jurisdiction of the US). They want to have a simple kill switch that just makes it dead without any bothersome hoops like due process and court orders. In short they want more power and less checks and balances on that power.
ju4nchoJan 23, 2012
SOPA and PIPA: The holy inquisition for our personal information.
charlotte_webJan 23, 2012
It's staggering how much money the Megaupload guys made:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2089954/Megaupload-founder-Kim-Dotcom-sprang-electronic-locks-Bond-villain-lair-police-swooped.html
stubearJan 23, 2012
Yeah, that guy was in it to help the artists /s
Rien1786Jan 23, 2012
just think if the MPAA and RIAA were using their time/money to develop a way to do what mega upload did, all that money would have gone to them and SOPA wouldn't exist. But they are too interested in boneing the little guy and forcing people to try to go back to an out dated distribution system that noone wants/likes/needs.
ognatovskiyJan 23, 2012
Also, they need to embrace stuff like Netflix and Spotify because those services are how they can compete with piracy.
Instead their execs are fighting to maintain an unsustainable status quo.
bluto36Jan 23, 2012
horse carriage makers fighting dirty to slow down Henry fords model T.
just think if they could have had the Green lobby back then to attack ford to protect the wagon makers.
would be just like the media empire using congress to fight their battle today instead of improving their business model.
rencomocsJan 28, 2012
exactly
http://pigeonkingdom.com
MicroBiltJan 23, 2012
It's tough because there will always be another site that is created. It seems like an endless battle
sonicomegaJan 23, 2012
They arent after internet piracy. They are trying to suppress the exchange of information. Also Blackwater has a contract for the War on Drugs. Thay are coming here!
windsweep9Jan 23, 2012
It's more a question of criminal activity compared to vaguely criminal activity. It's pretty clear Kim Dotcom was a criminal though... http://theairspace.net/events/fat-fierce-fearless/Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bluto36Jan 23, 2012
because sony does not want you to share something you own?
because they would rather have the govt fight their battle by force of gun then update their business model?
dotcom is not the problem, you are.
ptthaesFeb 19, 2012
nice info.
http://www.couple.web.id/
simawarFeb 18, 2012
please visit my blog :)
http://zonaunikdanmenarik.blogspot.com/
beachsideladyJan 29, 2012
yes
beachsideladyJan 29, 2012
yes
liron90Jan 28, 2012
sopa will ruin the internet...
karmashockJan 27, 2012
It's a good point.
karmashockJan 27, 2012
It's a good point.
sepjoe17Jan 26, 2012
They curtail freedom of speech and the right to due process. I thought we are the land of the free...
bmarofskyJan 25, 2012
Aren't they accusing Kim of paying cash to contributors of illegal content?
shilpatharaJan 24, 2012
gud
shilpatharaJan 24, 2012
gud
ren1999Jan 24, 2012
How does the U.S. government justify cutting social programs for the poor when it obviously has all our tax money for fighting silly software pirates who offer movies that appear a few months later on HBO anyway?!
mathewldJan 24, 2012
Yeah they can. But i think you know the pressure from above is restricting them.
wearywanderer64Jan 24, 2012
The Feds will always find a way to do what they want. It's up to us demand change via the vote.
stratcommJan 24, 2012
In my opinion, It's just a pure example of abuse of power and scare tactics, then. The various lobby groups and government didn't get their prized laws in place due to mass opposition, they make a grand show of force to say "In the end, we'll get our way" to scare companies and websites to do the work they wanted done. It doesn't compromise their image if a website shuts down of their own accord; Filesonic just took the bait and ran with it. It's similar to stock market crash: when one huge company falls, other companies and shareholders in the same sector start to SELL SELL SELL, and then others are motivated to follow, causing a self-fulfilling crash. Laws or no laws, they're flexing muscle because they can.
It will only get worse if ACTA gets ratified in Europe, even if we all mass together and try fight it.
- It passes, we're slowly being screwed legally.
-It doesn't pass, a show of force will be done (again) and everyone will panic.
MrpThaiJan 24, 2012
Who really benefits real.
Harry_Dorcas_OnlyJan 24, 2012
I certainly agree with this...
clustertuxJan 24, 2012
http://digg.com/news/technology/kingston_ssdnow_v_200_sata_iii_solid_state_drives
swarooppatilJan 24, 2012
Agree .. 100% .. F**K ..SOPA
ohnoeeeJan 24, 2012
Fileserve is down now too...
Crocko.com, Filepost and Filejungle have all stopped there Affiliate $$$ Program
robertosvoltaJan 24, 2012
why?
bigmike483Jan 24, 2012
Exactly......so, can we move on now? Please?
irodqpJan 24, 2012
They Need SOPA so that psychologically "we the people" think it was our Idea in the 1st place. THE secret agenda wins "psychologically" and if not by force.
So they are basically saying, now is not the time because the people can cause a revolution, so they wait a few years, generate chaos and fear and then tell you that they will censor the net because there is an imminent threat to freedom, they will overthrow the IRAQ regime and whoever else is on their Agenda, the only reason they can't do it in plane sight is because they know world is watching, and we are more we can put up a fight. So 1st Tactic is to infiltrate and overthrow from within. Install and set up a "friendly" government and move on to the next. WAKE UP HUMANITY!
cadchrJan 24, 2012
Seems odd, right? Why does the government need to regulate EVERYTHING?!