This borders on R&P, so how we hande this thread depends on if it will stay above water. Now you all know that I'm not overly ruffled by DRM. This new proposed legislation, however, is beyond the pale in my mind and has significant reprecussions on internet use in America.

Here is the RPS article on it:

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/01/05/rps-asks-esa-members-to-denounce-sopa/

Worse, from a gaming standpoint, the ESA supports the legislation (along with a lot of the big organizations in music and movies). That means that many of the big name gaming studios who are members of the ESA also support the legislation. At the moment it is all in formative stages, but it boils down to government sanctions against American ISPs and search engine sites that do not take reasonable efforts to block access to foreign sites that might contain links to pirated copyright material. I don't need to extrapolate for many here to get the picture.

This is serious business and I suggest that those who feel strongly about it contact their representatives and tell them what you think. Here is a link to the bill itself. The sponsorship of this bill is remarkably bipartisan.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-3261

I fully expect 99% of all gamers to roll over and play dead just as they have for 99% of the DRM schemes they have chosen to ignore. If they can't be bothered to read the terms of an End User License Agreement, why would they bother to stand up for their rights now?

I am 99% a lurker but I happen to make my living in online marketing.  Funny that nothing gaming related spurs my 1st post in several months.  The legislation is both scary and a mind-boggling exercise in congressional stupidity ( as if we needed more).  Congress members for only reasons they understand seem to think it is okay if they don't understand the Internet.  In fact they seem to revel in sayings like "i am not a geek", etc. They must think this aligns them with the "common man".  Sheesh.

You know what it is 2012 it is NOT okay for a congressman / congreswoman to have no clue how the Internet works.

Anyway there is a rumor of an Internet Blackout to be put into effect by Google, Twitter, Amazon & Facebook among others on January 23rd.  Here is a link ( there are many others)

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/igeneration/google-amazon-twitter-and-facebook-consider-nuclear-blackout/14307

Part of me would love to see this for the sheer audacity / logistics of it and part because maybe it would call more attention to SOPA.

Beldar

SOPA isn't going to pass in it's current form.  Not even close.   It's gradually but very, very steadily becoming the legislative equivalent of a $650,000,000 jury award which gets all the press, but then eventually gets reduced to $14,500 by a judge on appeal.

It is a rare day when I agree with Son of Montfort on a political/policy issue, but I have to say that he is 100% right on this one.

SOPA is bad news, a terrible bill that needs to be voted down, and could very well lead to Internet censorship according to many non-tinfoil hat wearing types.

I would not lightly dismiss the chances that SOPA can pass in something close to its current form.

This is an election year, and the Hollywood/entertainment industry folks are major political players, with a lot of money and free publicity to hand out, which goes a long way towards moving something like SOPA forward.

Although Hollywood in general loves Obama and Democrats, do not underestimate the desire of many Republicans to appease/get in with this crowd too.  That is one of the reasons you see this bill being of a bipartisan nature in support.

Thankfully there are principled members of both parties in bipartisan opposition as well, as they see the potential dangers.

I would heartily endorse the call of SoM for all of us here to weigh in with our representatives on this one.

I'm currently going to college to become an IT professional and this is an issue we've discussed a bit, mostly because of the ramifications of this. It's a bad bill and a bad idea. I don't like the idea of restricting speech (even those I disagree with) and as what I've discussed with my classmates on this is since the internet as we know it came online in 1991, the law has been behind the curve on it.  They've been playing catch-up to every single advance. Plus in my opinion both Movie and Music Industries were really behind regarding distribution digitally. Plus this makes the Great Firewall of China look tame, this is BAD.

I don't know enough about this law to weigh in definitely, but I have some problems with that  RPS discussion.  My problem is that it's bullshit.

They start by saying the bill "would allow the US Department of Justice, and indeed any business with enough money, to seek a court order to have a website they claim is infringing copyright blocked from US access." (emphasis added)

Then they quote a portion of the bill:

(i) IN GENERAL- A service provider shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures designed to prevent access by its subscribers located within the United States to the foreign infringing site (or portion thereof) that is subject to the order, including measures designed to prevent the domain name of the foreign infringing site (or portion thereof) from resolving to that domain name’s Internet Protocol address. Such actions shall be taken as expeditiously as possible, but in any case within 5 days after being served with a copy of the order, or within such time as the court may order.

(emphasis added)

Here comes the bullshit part.  Although clearly nothing happens until a court order is obtained, RPS says "if a corporation claims that a site is infringing their copyright, then without that site’s involvement at any level, it will be required by US law to be blocked from access, invisible on search engines, and be completely unknowable in the US." 

Meanwhile, RPS doesn't even touch the place where the rubber meets the road: the requirements for obtaining a court order.  So I looked at the actual statute.  The statute defines "foreign infringing site" as a site that, among other things,

(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

So instead of blocking a site merely because a corporation claims it is infringing the copyright--and corporations claim that kind of crap every day, so that's nothing--a site can only be blocked if it is found by a court of law to be committing or facilitating federal crimes and the site would be subject to seizure by the DOJ if it were a domestic site.

The devil will really be in the details of how courts interpret the bill, but really it sounds pretty straightforward to me, and until somebody educates me about some subtleties I may be missing, I think I favor this bill.  I personally am not crazy about these virus-laden Asian spam/warez/porn sites that eat your computer and prevent artists and software designers from earning royalties on sales of their creative works, thereby stifling art and innovation.  And I'm afraid I really don't see how free speech is stifled by the United States doing what it can, within the United States, to prevent major economic crime from occurring within the United States.

Whatever happened to "innocent until PROVEN guilty?" Reading this it sounds like any corporation can just CLAIM someone they don't like is pirating them and this order gets put into action? Nah, I can't go with that. You have to PROVE they are doing it not just your say so. I don't think it would ever fly or pass anyways though. Just more what do they call it during war.....propaganda? Something to ruffles the little peoples feathers and something to waste time on instead of the economy and the deficit.

Originally Posted By Wolverine101

Whatever happened to "innocent until PROVEN guilty?" Reading this it sounds like any corporation can just CLAIM someone they don't like is pirating them and this order gets put into action? Nah, I can't go with that. You have to PROVE they are doing it not just your say so. I don't think it would ever fly or pass anyways though. Just more what do they call it during war.....propaganda? Something to ruffles the little peoples feathers and something to waste time on instead of the economy and the deficit.

Originally Posted By glen55

Originally Posted By Wolverine101

Whatever happened to "innocent until PROVEN guilty?" Reading this it sounds like any corporation can just CLAIM someone they don't like is pirating them and this order gets put into action? Nah, I can't go with that. You have to PROVE they are doing it not just your say so. I don't think it would ever fly or pass anyways though. Just more what do they call it during war.....propaganda? Something to ruffles the little peoples feathers and something to waste time on instead of the economy and the deficit.

It does sound like that, but it's BS: the bill doesn't say that.  Read my post.

I did read your post and it gave me a headache.  But, from what I could make out it read like what I posted.

Originally Posted By glen55

...and prevent artists and software designers from earning royalties on sales of their creative works, thereby stifling art and innovation...

I think the "Our movie had 1K illegal downloads so at $10 each we're lost 10K USD's to those dastardly pirate's" arguement has been shot full of holes for years and has never been proven. 

Stifling art and innovation my ass.

Originally Posted By Greybriar

I fully expect 99% of all gamers to roll over and play dead just as they have for 99% of the DRM schemes they have chosen to ignore. If they can't be bothered to read the terms of an End User License Agreement, why would they bother to stand up for their rights now?

Whilst I would agree that ignorance is not a defence - are you suggesting that a) everyone reads an EULA and b) that they read EVER EULA (in case something is changed) and c) they read the updated EULA?

Sure - the EULA is there. Sure it is to "protect us" as it is to "protect them"...yeah...yada yada yada

Have you actually physically read an EULA? more - have you read more than one in case they changed a particular word...have you read the updated EULA?

Be serious for a second...and I know there are lawyer types will be all over this post (so I'm posting it after my 7th can of Stella - and Im not a lawyer or a scholar - just a layman) - they really, really are not meant for the layman - are they? I know - again - ignorance is not an excuse - but you know and I know they are most definitely written in such a way as to make it incomprehensible to some and just downright bloody boring to the ones who can remotely understand them.

So - until they actually sort that out - DRM and it's effects will be an irrelevane to most - because some (like me) may have read one in the past and thought "You know what - the next time I think I'm going to do that again, I'll take a massive dose of "I couldn't give a shite because you are seriously taking the piss" and not bother, or some will have had a glance and said "WTF are they actually talking about".

Add the confusion within the EULA itself with the "local" rights of the consumer being contradicted by the EULA itself - there you have absolute, total and utter confusion!

The whole thing is designed to "help" gamers and protect them, yet written in such a way as it means nothing to the vast majority of them.

You cannot say that most people just bend over and take it - some of those "bend over and take it" guys have actually read EULAs and thought they are full of the proverbial...and they wouldn't be far wrong. There are cross overs of rights all over the place when it comes to EULAs and end users.

There seriously has to be a better way to write an EUAL for it's target market...

"You can't copy my shite"

"You can't loan my shite"

"You don't own my shite"

"I'll kick your arse if you forward my shite on"

We are not talking about things that are designed for intellactuals here - games are designed for all walks of life and as such the EULA should reflect that

Remember when the publisher/developer strongly suggested you make a backup of the game?

Isn't that illegal under the EULA?

I genuinely do not know anymore - and really don't give a rats arse - which is why I posted what I posted. What they say makes no sense - it makes even less sense regionally and locally.

By the way I haven't read the link yet - I was just specifically referring to GB post about who gives a shite - and what I was trying to say is that some people don't give a shite, some people do, and others (I would hazard a guess the vast majority) used to give a shite - by reading the EULA and thinking "WTF am I doing this for everytime I buy/update a game?"

I pretty much come down on the side of S_O_M. But here's an interesting tibbit you can try. Google "Warez bb" and see what pops up. Now scroll down and read what it says at the bottom of the page. I'll paste it here:

In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 2 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at ChillingEffects.org.

Seems this kind of stuff already is in play. i find it silly-as the log-in screen links appear-so how blocking a home page acomplishes anything-but there you have a real example to ponder and discuss.

For me I feel I've been victimized. What other results in other areas are failing to pop up on google? I'll point out the Warez sites are exactly where you obtain pirated games, books and movies-but seems to me there's a basic thing missing here--namely go after the site and close it--rather than censor search results to the general public. Sadly --it's a political failure and these sites operate freely overseas. There's nothing being done to sway these countries to take action. Be it sick child porn from asia to warez sites in central europe. Not all in 3rd world countries--but in modern idustrial nations who are members of the U.N. and so forth. It's a complete political failure--much like the so called war on drugs where even though we had complete military control of the country that produces 90 percent of it in the world not one action was done to stop it.

This is a adjunct to this discussion.
I can not understand why a copyright is forever, but a patent right is not.  I believe this discourages Innovation. An example. Suppose someone held the copyright on Calculus. This is not original thinking on my part, some an academia and business have suggested that the copyright laws are to restrictive.

Copyright is on specific wording or a specific design. It does not block the idea or derivative (ha) ideas. A patent is on the invention and what it does so other methods of doing the same are affected.

Im with Glenn55 until convinced otherwise. If a court has to give the order to block a site based on proven criminal activity it seems like no change from now. What is the big deal?

Ghostryder,

The US Digital Millenium Copyright Act was the first step that made SOPA have a legal precedent, and it was largely put in place and is enforced without many internet users having any clue as to what it means or can do. I fear the same effect with SOPA.

The change I see with SOPA regarding the court order is that it forces individual ISPs and search engines to actively block access to sites related to these court orders. It isn't just the site, but the ACCESS to the site that changes. And it will only be access to that site by Americans. I'm naturally suspicious of large corporations or corporate consortiums, and I'm not too naive to know that money often equals influence, even in the judicial arena. So the fear is that, should the music/movie/gaming/etc. industry not like a certain activity or website, they can influence their way to getting that site effectively censored from American view. Given that the internet is not an American entity, it is a worldwide storehouse and transfer station of information, I'm not convinced that having access to information blocked is a good precedent. What is wrong with the system of punishing those caught doing illegal activity via the internet, rather than cutting off all access to sites deemed "questionable" by people whose power does not always come from being an elected representative?

Please note, I can't agree with Hancock that this has anything particularly to do with the presidential administration. The bill has supporters on both sides.

This would open the door to such terrible abuses and censorship, all at the whim of widely varying corporate & private interests, that I'm appalled it's even gone as far as it has.   

It's a straight line to Chinese-style internet.  BOOOO!

Originally Posted By son_of_montfort

Ghostryder,

 

The US Digital Millenium Copyright Act was the first step that made SOPA have a legal precedent, and it was largely put in place and is enforced without many internet users having any clue as to what it means or can do. I fear the same effect with SOPA.

 

The change I see with SOPA regarding the court order is that it forces individual ISPs and search engines to actively block access to sites related to these court orders. It isn't just the site, but the ACCESS to the site that changes. And it will only be access to that site by Americans. I'm naturally suspicious of large corporations or corporate consortiums, and I'm not too naive to know that money often equals influence, even in the judicial arena. So the fear is that, should the music/movie/gaming/etc. industry not like a certain activity or website, they can influence their way to getting that site effectively censored from American view. Given that the internet is not an American entity, it is a worldwide storehouse and transfer station of information, I'm not convinced that having access to information blocked is a good precedent. What is wrong with the system of punishing those caught doing illegal activity via the internet, rather than cutting off all access to sites deemed "questionable" by people whose power does not always come from being an elected representative?

 

Please note, I can't agree with Hancock that this has anything particularly to do with the presidential administration. The bill has supporters on both sides.

The point of the internet is it re-routes around blockages. It was supposed to survive an attack. Every router with a direct cross-border link would have to have it blocked. How long before something that big hit the press if it was being abused? Can US judges be influenced so easily? Id like to think not. Even if there was a corrupt court they would have to consider the chances of their cronyism being exposed when this has to be taken to every company with a cross border link. 

If they have no authority in another country what else can they do to stop cross border crime?

I once bought a DVD set from an online store. I assumed it was in the US, maybe used. When I got the disks they were shipped from China. The box was a very professional copy. The disks had high quality printing. Besides the origin they only thing that made me think it was fake was they had a chinese language option (never seen that before), there was a chinese style lining inside, they were cheap. I contacted BBC video about it to see what they want to do. I never got a reply to my email. I assume they feel they have no power at the origin. I never went to that store website again.

Its not like someone can lobby for gunboat diplomacy against a big country. They have to respect international norms or be censured.

When I checked the Good Old Games website this morning, I saw this:

GOG.com Joins Opposition to SOPA & PIPA

That was something quite different from the weekend special I was hoping for.

The White House came out against SOPA over the weekend.

SOPA was shelved today by the House of Representatives.

Look for similar laws to be proposed by the same Representatives in the future - they need to show something to their SuperPAC funders, after all. 

Yep, the IP shoveling organizations, such as the RIAA (known for suing 12 yr old girls for millions) will keep their lobby & donations rolling, and continue to try this on a regular basis.

Wikipedia is supposed to have a 24 hour blackout to publicize this megacorp takeover to the masses.  Good for them.