quisquose Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Is is really? really? really? Is it? Really is it? Nonesense. Closing down shops selling illegal goods perhaps? Closing down shops selling pirate dvds perhaps? Closing down shops selling stolen material perhaps? Lets just watch this space instead shall we. Yes, really. If a complaint of copyright infringement is lodged under SOPA, the site is shut down and the burden of proof shunted onto the owners to prove their innocence. So it would be like shutting down the shop on the mere accusation of selling pirate dvds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rampent Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Seeing as the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), Protect IP Act (PIPA) and Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) will inevitably ruin and black list free speech and internet use. Please feel free to boycott the following companies listed in the link below and many more which seem likely to follow. Below is the full list of companies the House Judicial Committee lists as SOPA supporters: http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/76259944 Top post Jase Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECCOnoob Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 and that's a problem because?? Presumably once said site has proved their innocence they will reopen again. Just like lets say a retail store accused of selling hazardous goods which is forced to close until such a time as they are checked out. Or maybe a restaurant which allegedly breaches hygene or h&s regulations. shut down until such time as the investigations clear them. Or even lets say accusations of corruption against a premium rate phone line or gambling site. They are shut down until they are proven to be clean and then simply reopen. What's the difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Yes, really. If a complaint of copyright infringement is lodged under SOPA, the site is shut down and the burden of proof shunted onto the owners to prove their innocence. So it would be like shutting down the shop on the mere accusation of selling pirate dvds. So why would a copyright holder make an accusation of copyright infringement against a site which was not infringing their copyright? There are loads of bootlegging sites out there, surely they would go after them not random websites for a laugh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 and that's a problem because?? It's a problem because in both this country and the USA, you are innocent unless and until convicted. These acts violate so many US Constitutional amendments, I actually lost count. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonjon Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 So why would a copyright holder make an accusation of copyright infringement against a site which was not infringing their copyright? There are loads of bootlegging sites out there, surely they would go after them not random websites for a laugh? Maybe, what about if I posted a link on here to piratebay, they could then close this site for linking to a copyright infringed site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 So why would a copyright holder make an accusation of copyright infringement against a site which was not infringing their copyright? Usually, it's because someone put something on the site which was infringing copyright, and they weren't aware of it. As, for instance, someone might post a link to a DVD download on this forum, and the moderators would delete it once it came to their attention. Too late though; this forum is in violation of SOPA and will be forced to close. (This is all theory anyway, since SOPA is now dead; but the other two might yet come into force.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Number Six Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 So why would a copyright holder make an accusation of copyright infringement against a site which was not infringing their copyright? Yes, why would large oranisations be really heavy handed when it comes to small sites. See my avatar? It's 64px square, and an image that is almost certainly copyrighted, come to think of it. If the owner complained, it'd be bye bye SF under SOPA, until SF had found the money to get the lawyers to sort it out. That's the sort of power it gives. I've seen it likened to dealing with an escaped lion by shooting some kittens in the face. When a big organisation takes on a little one, the big one wins - not because it's right, but because it has the money. Shifting the burden of proof on to the alleged violator makes it even harder for the small guy to win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 So why would a copyright holder make an accusation of copyright infringement against a site which was not infringing their copyright? There are loads of bootlegging sites out there, surely they would go after them not random websites for a laugh? Well what if you simply didn't like a site, and you knew that a complaint of copyright infringement shut the site down with immediate effect, with the burden of proof of innocence shifting onto the site owner. It must be soooo tempting to use this sledgehammer of bad law in a mischievous manner. Left winger complains about right wing site, and vice versa. Company complains about competitor. Pro-lifer complains about a pro-choice site. And so on, and so on. Internet grinds to a halt. The shop shuts down. SOPA is very bad law that poses a risk to the Internet. Besides there are already laws against copyright theft, just as there are already laws against shoplifting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VideoPro Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 They are shut down until they are proven to be clean and then simply reopen. This thread might theoretically be enough to shut down SF if music industry lawyers decided to complain under SOPA. What's the difference. Months and months of lost business. By the time it has been processed by the courts, it might be no longer economically viable to re-open. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.