Have you read the original text of SOPA or the Manager's Amendment? (And presumably, the final version will look even more different once the markup is done.) Because the Manager's Amendment was designed to address many of the concerns raised about SOPA, which I think it does.
In short, the change that was submitted via the Manager's Amendment procedure is a slight improvement over the original text. It's still just as uncertain and, therefore, just as scary for businesses that operate online.
This is not true. No one gets sued under SOPA. A more accurate real-world equivalent would be the federal government issuing a notice to the city saying, "Hey, you have a house with a meth lab within your borders. Please stop subsidizing their mortgage and stop directing people to go there - especially when they're only looking for candy."
SOPA grants the power to request court issued injunctions demanding that various parties (service providers, ad services, etc) disable access to content. This is much worse than suing.
So, let me restate my example:
One day, an order shows up in front of the City Council that says "unless you deploy the Police to block off access to this road, we will do bad things to you".
That's a lot worse than being sued.
Agreed. I never said it did. And that's why this method is being proposed, because it is more effective to target the most egregious violators - the ones who are providing access to all this pirated content - than it is to sue college students.
You're not targeting violators. Let's be perfectly clear on that -- SOPA does not target the people who are doing illegal things. SOPA targets my business.
What would you suggest then? You claim to support what it's trying to accomplish, but what is the proposal to do it effectively?
Sorry, I'm not going to play this game -- I'm a software engineer/sysadmin/whatever you want to call me. I can make the Internet sing and dance to my tune and deliver a damn fine service to my users. I'm not going to pretend that I have the answer to this problem in my back pocket. :)
However, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try - and this will go a long way toward preventing "casual piracy."
I disagree that casual privacy is a problem, here, because:
The average consumer who goes to Google and types in the title of a movie (or a clothing brand, or pharmaceuticals, or auto parts, etc. - keep in mind this is not just applicable to digital content) and the first page of search results is full of websites to download or stream it illegally.
This is provably false. I just went to Google, right now, and tested this out. I used the following searches:
another earth lord of the rings mission impossible radiohead gap old navy carter's
Not a single one returned, as you claim, "search results full of websites to download or stream it illegally". There were a few YouTube links to videos that contain songs by Radiohead, but that's something you should take up with YouTube!
Some people legitimately don't realize it's piracy. Others just do it because it's easy and free. If it's not so easy, then yes, I do think it will restrict piracy to the most dedicated users, whom we are never going to stop anyway.
Get with the Ad Exchange or some other groups. Spend your money on educating the public. Let them know that this is illegal. If education is your problem, then you should be educating people.
You make it sound like the US Government has nothing better to do than to investigate every single website on the internet and approve it for access, which, honestly? Sounds a little conspiracy-theorist to me. Policing the internet is far above and beyond what they want to be doing. The truth is, it's COMPLETELY the opposite. Only the worst of the worst sites are going to be targeted, because that's the best use of their time and resources.
If we don't want the government to police the Internet, then we need to avoid giving them the power to do so. If they do have the power, then they will.
This isn't a conspiracy theory, this is established fact. The DoJ has admitted that they've used the wiretap provisions of the Patriot Act in many ways that are not terrorism related at all. Go do some "abuse of the patriot act" research and you'll find plenty of corroborated evidence that, given half a chance, power is abused.
There is a truism that "power corrupts" and it's absolutely true. I think that SOPA and things like it are probably started with great ideals and a lot of positive thinking. That's great. At the end of the day, however, it grants power that did not previously exist. Power that can be pointed at people who aren't the violators -- and that is dangerous and wrong.
Re: SOPA/PROTECT IP
This is a good analysis:
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2011/12/first-amendment-stop-online-piracy-acts.html
In short, the change that was submitted via the Manager's Amendment procedure is a slight improvement over the original text. It's still just as uncertain and, therefore, just as scary for businesses that operate online.
SOPA grants the power to request court issued injunctions demanding that various parties (service providers, ad services, etc) disable access to content. This is much worse than suing.
So, let me restate my example:
One day, an order shows up in front of the City Council that says "unless you deploy the Police to block off access to this road, we will do bad things to you".
That's a lot worse than being sued.
You're not targeting violators. Let's be perfectly clear on that -- SOPA does not target the people who are doing illegal things. SOPA targets my business.
Sorry, I'm not going to play this game -- I'm a software engineer/sysadmin/whatever you want to call me. I can make the Internet sing and dance to my tune and deliver a damn fine service to my users. I'm not going to pretend that I have the answer to this problem in my back pocket. :)
I disagree that casual privacy is a problem, here, because:
This is provably false. I just went to Google, right now, and tested this out. I used the following searches:
another earth
lord of the rings
mission impossible
radiohead
gap
old navy
carter's
Not a single one returned, as you claim, "search results full of websites to download or stream it illegally". There were a few YouTube links to videos that contain songs by Radiohead, but that's something you should take up with YouTube!
Get with the Ad Exchange or some other groups. Spend your money on educating the public. Let them know that this is illegal. If education is your problem, then you should be educating people.
If we don't want the government to police the Internet, then we need to avoid giving them the power to do so. If they do have the power, then they will.
This isn't a conspiracy theory, this is established fact. The DoJ has admitted that they've used the wiretap provisions of the Patriot Act in many ways that are not terrorism related at all. Go do some "abuse of the patriot act" research and you'll find plenty of corroborated evidence that, given half a chance, power is abused.
There is a truism that "power corrupts" and it's absolutely true. I think that SOPA and things like it are probably started with great ideals and a lot of positive thinking. That's great. At the end of the day, however, it grants power that did not previously exist. Power that can be pointed at people who aren't the violators -- and that is dangerous and wrong.