I would urge extreme caution about reading too much into this article.<p>I (I'm a political junkie) saw Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) on TV yesterday. The message I got from his body language, nuance, and phrasing was something like "Obviously people who are elected from heavy technology areas are feeling a lot of heat. There's still a lot of support, though. Let's see if we can tweak this in such a way as to pass some kind of compromise."<p>Maybe that's just Reid trying to keep the RIAA cash cow alive, not sure. But I was fairly certain that what I was hearing was a tactical retreat, not a strategic surrender. Not by any means. My money says next time they'll have some language in there that could be interpreted a bunch of different ways (to prevent informed debate), and they'll wait until the last minute and sneak it into some other bill that is a "must-pass."
Isn't this the point where 'the people' should not sit on their laurels, and launch a proposal to make a law that does exactly the opposite: protecting the digital rights of citizens?<p>I am asking because (also in the EU) we are usually happy when some draconian law does not make it, but there's rarely an attempt to push for legislation that secures the rights of internet users.
They're certainly trying to get in front of this story before the 18th. I hope none of the sites planning to protest drop those plans.<p>Politicians and lobbyists know well that the public has a short attention span -- a few weeks of quiet and most of the discussion will have died down. When's the last time you read about protesting the full body scanners and patdowns of children at airports?<p>Even if these bills are shelved now, they'll be back later this year.
While watching the MSNBC video yesterday, Cotton's repeated assertions that this only applied to 'foreign sites' bugged me. From the SOPA text:<p>--------------<p><pre><code> (a) Definition- For purposes of this section, a foreign Internet site or portion thereof is a `foreign infringing site' if--
(1) the Internet site or portion thereof is a U.S.-directed site and is used by users in the United States;
(2) the owner or operator of such Internet site is committing or facilitating the commission of criminal violations punishable under section 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2319B, or 2320, or chapter 90, of title 18, United States Code; and
(3) the Internet site would, by reason of acts described in paragraph (1), be subject to seizure in the United States in an action brought by the Attorney General if such site were a domestic Internet site.</code></pre>
--------------<p>So, a foreign site can be 'u.s.-directed' and used by users in the US. Doesn't sound very 'foreign' to me at all. Sounds an awful lot like 'domestic'.<p>Yes, I'm sure there's legal interpretations of these words that I'm not aware of, but it sure as hell reads to me like when they say "foreign sites" they're not meaning 'foreign' in the sense that anyone in the US would reasonably understand.
Excerpts from Rupert Murdoch's reaction <a href="https://twitter.com/Rupertmurdoch" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/Rupertmurdoch</a><p>"So Obama has thrown in his lot withSilicon Valley paymasters who threaten all software creators with piracy, plain thievery."<p>"Piracy leader is Google who streams movies free, sells advts around them. No wonder pouring millions into lobbying."<p>"Sure misunderstand many things, but not plain stealing. Incidentally google blocks many other undesirable things."<p>"Seems like universal anger with [POTUS] from all sorts of normal supporters. Maybe backing pirates a rare miscalculation by friend Axelrod."
Ok fellas, we still have some serious work to do.<p>If it's not already painfully apparent, our current batch of representatives are completely ineligible to pass modern legislation. They're not idiots, they're not morons, they just don't have the relevant backgrounds to represent us anymore. The times have changed around them, and their skills and background are no longer effective or relevant enough.<p>We need to work hard to get new representatives on the hill that understand and respect technology. The only way non oppressive legislation even stands a chance is if we have representatives that understand the workings of the internet and don't say things like "let google just hire some 16 year old wiz-kid to fix it".<p>Seriously. It's no longer ok to be a representative and not understand the internet. It is a fundamental part of commerce, free speech, assembly, religion, education, etc. and it's outright dangerous to have people in office who don't understand it attempting to control it.<p>It's up to us to get relevant, modern representatives in office. We just need to work together and do it.
Caution is warranted: "shelved" bills all too often are left there untouched until circumstances warrant slipping them, or a palatable functional equivalent, through unnoticed. It's not dead, it's resting.
Heh, first post here. Hi.<p>Although I'm from the UK, I have been following this with keen interest,particularly as US authorities are able to pluck our citizens from our country on mere suspicion.<p>Just to say, and Im sure you all know it already, you have not won, keep pushing and pushing until there <i>is</i> a law, but a fair just one. I don't want such laws, but there are inevitable. Just be sure they are laws that work fairly and properly.<p>I think the thing to do now is for the community to create and propose its own law(s) and push that on the politicians. Present a credible alternative. Get the legislation we want, not what they want. Perhaps some one needs to set up a site where the on line community can collaborate in putting together a workable solution.<p>Any way, congratulations for winning the battle, just remember that we still have the war to win.
Good. This is an important victory but the people behind SOPA won't go away so easily. I've always viewed SOPA as more of a litmus test to gauge where Americans stood on copyright enforcement. The next bill the industry tries to get passed(and there will be another) will likely be much more subtle than SOPA was. So let's celebrate, but we must remain diligent. This was only the first round.
I applaud the US political system for being better than the UK counterpart in this instance.<p>The copyright mafia tried the exact same trick in the UK two years ago: a bill was pushed through Parliament on election year, when MPs had to make their funding rounds and so were more amenable to being bribed... and it passed.<p>Nice to see US representatives still have a bit more decency (either that, or Google's chequebook is now much lighter than it was three month ago).
Awesome, so politians now have two large constituencies to milk: big media and internet-savvy technology companies/the general tech-savvy public.<p>See, the only one profiting from this ordeal irrelevant of how it plays out are politicians. They get to enlarge their power and money base whenever anyone thinks an issue best be regulated by law.
This is just a leadership commitment in the Republican House, the U.S. Senate (controlled by Democrats, and where overall support for SOPA/PIPA seems stronger) could still take up the bill. There are ways to pass legislation that circumvent a direct House vote.<p>It is good news, but I'd wait to see what Senators say this week.
I like the idea that there should be an active push to reduce the term of copyright. There's certainly a case to be made that it's unreasonably long, and that the length does not benefit the public.<p>Take the fight to their turf or always be fighting a defensive war.
Did they really have any choice? After the statement from the White House, they had to put it on hold because they do not want it to be vetoed. They will still come back, but they will either wait until they can make the President happy (which might be hard if he is in his second year and does not have to run again) or wait to see if Mitt Romney wins.<p>I just hope that PIPA is put on hold as well and hopefully after the election things will be better (depending on what types are voted in) and not worse.
> Though the administration's chief technology officials officials acknowledged the problem of online privacy<p>Funny that this Freudian slip has shown up in more than one SOPA article.
Congress will simply throw SOPA in as an amendment to some completely unrelated bill that people will have a hard time saying no to such as such as funding for puppies. Then if somebody opposes they can say "what about the puppies!"<p>Certainly my example is silly yet unrelated amendments are made to bills all the time to push one agenda or another.
It just means the congressmen involved are going to go back and get another hit of money from the copyright industry and then run this through attached to some other bill.
We need right to connectivity to internet right up there with the right to vibrate your vocal chords in public and use your ears to detect vibrations in air. To take away a human's access to these basic things because they are criminals is unacceptable.