Absolutely positively NOT.  SOPA and its companion piece are terrible bills.  Legitimate websites, if found with images infringing on a copyright, would be blacklisted and the government would seize their domain names.  Just imagine some idiot uploading one of your images to Shutterstock or another agency, and you report the infringement to authorities.  The agency would be shut down just on your accusation of infringement without a trial.  That does so much more harm than good.

Absolutely positively NOT.  SOPA and its companion piece are terrible bills.  Legitimate websites, if found with images infringing on a copyright, would be blacklisted and the government would seize their domain names.  Just imagine some idiot uploading one of your images to Shutterstock or another agency, and you report the infringement to authorities.  The agency would be shut down just on your accusation of infringement without a trial.  That does so much more harm than good.

^^^ That is a gross misrepresentation and a ridiculous exaggeration of what the bill intends. SS or any other proper agency is clearly a legitimate business operating on behalf of its contributors (which the bill seeks to protect). The bill provides the means for taking down illegitimate businesses such as Heroturko and the like. Or characters like this;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-16544335

Are you saying you are in favour of piracy and theft of your copyright and if not what would you propose instead?

Sweden recognizes digital piracy religion: Kopimism 

Quote from: Karimala on January 17, 2012, 16:20

Absolutely positively NOT.  SOPA and its companion piece are terrible bills.  Legitimate websites, if found with images infringing on a copyright, would be blacklisted and the government would seize their domain names.  Just imagine some idiot uploading one of your images to Shutterstock or another agency, and you report the infringement to authorities.  The agency would be shut down just on your accusation of infringement without a trial.  That does so much more harm than good.

^^^ That is a gross misrepresentation and a ridiculous exaggeration of what the bill intends. SS or any other proper agency is clearly a legitimate business operating on behalf of its contributors (which the bill seeks to protect). The bill provides the means for taking down illegitimate businesses such as Heroturko and the like. Or characters like this;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-16544335

Are you saying you are in favour of piracy and theft of your copyright and if not what would you propose instead?

Not at all.  Of course I'm in favor of the intent and understand fully they are meant to take down illegitimate sites, but the bills as written are unacceptable.  As a California resident, I'm very concerned about any unintended consequences to the tech industry in the Silicon Valley, as well as how infringing on copyrights affects the entertainment/media industry, and how one bad unintended consequence could negatively impact my state's economy.  Tech and entertainment/media are two of the largest industries in California (and California has the 7th largest economy in the world). 

Senator Patrick Leahy, one of the co-authors of PIPA (the senate version of SOPA), is now saying the bills need further study, because the effect on the tech industry wasn't considered when originally written.  The bills were originally pushed by the entertainment industry.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2398881,00.asp 

Rep. Darrell Issa from California is pushing for an alternative that would offer a compromise between the two industries.  I'm all for a compromise, because any anti-piracy legislation cannot be lopsided in favor of one industry over another.

https://www.pcworld.com/article/248240/opponent_says_sopa_may_be_stalled_in_congress.html

Quote from: gostwyck on January 17, 2012, 16:37

Quote from: Karimala on January 17, 2012, 16:20

Absolutely positively NOT.  SOPA and its companion piece are terrible bills.  Legitimate websites, if found with images infringing on a copyright, would be blacklisted and the government would seize their domain names.  Just imagine some idiot uploading one of your images to Shutterstock or another agency, and you report the infringement to authorities.  The agency would be shut down just on your accusation of infringement without a trial.  That does so much more harm than good.

^^^ That is a gross misrepresentation and a ridiculous exaggeration of what the bill intends. SS or any other proper agency is clearly a legitimate business operating on behalf of its contributors (which the bill seeks to protect). The bill provides the means for taking down illegitimate businesses such as Heroturko and the like. Or characters like this;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-16544335

Are you saying you are in favour of piracy and theft of your copyright and if not what would you propose instead?

Exactly my point.. I do believe this new thing is gonna be good for us.. Just imagine if similar bills are passed by all the governments in the world.. At least Europe should be expected to follow shortly, this will mean our content will not be available on pirate websites and will automatically translate to increased earnings.. am I missing something?

I think you are.  As with all RULES ... the devil is in the details ... especially the ENFORCEMENT details.

Quote from: cidepix on January 17, 2012, 16:48

Quote from: gostwyck on January 17, 2012, 16:37

Quote from: Karimala on January 17, 2012, 16:20

Absolutely positively NOT.  SOPA and its companion piece are terrible bills.  Legitimate websites, if found with images infringing on a copyright, would be blacklisted and the government would seize their domain names.  Just imagine some idiot uploading one of your images to Shutterstock or another agency, and you report the infringement to authorities.  The agency would be shut down just on your accusation of infringement without a trial.  That does so much more harm than good.

^^^ That is a gross misrepresentation and a ridiculous exaggeration of what the bill intends. SS or any other proper agency is clearly a legitimate business operating on behalf of its contributors (which the bill seeks to protect). The bill provides the means for taking down illegitimate businesses such as Heroturko and the like. Or characters like this;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-16544335

Are you saying you are in favour of piracy and theft of your copyright and if not what would you propose instead?

Exactly my point.. I do believe this new thing is gonna be good for us.. Just imagine if similar bills are passed by all the governments in the world.. At least Europe should be expected to follow shortly, this will mean our content will not be available on pirate websites and will automatically translate to increased earnings.. am I missing something?

I think you are.  As with all RULES ... the devil is in the details ... especially the ENFORCEMENT details.

Exactly!

I really don't know, Traveler.  Would IS be in US jurisdiction as a Getty-owned company or Canadian jurisdiction as it states in our ASA?  Just using them as an example.

Wikipedia makes a good point about websites using hosting services in other countries.

We depend on a legal infrastructure that makes it possible for us to operate. And we depend on a legal infrastructure that also allows other sites to host user-contributed material, both information and expression. For the most part, Wikimedia projects are organizing and summarizing and collecting the world�s knowledge. We�re putting it in context, and showing people how to make to sense of it.

But that knowledge has to be published somewhere for anyone to find and use it. Where it can be censored without due process, it hurts the speaker, the public, and Wikimedia. Where you can only speak if you have sufficient resources to fight legal challenges, or if your views are pre-approved by someone who does, the same narrow set of ideas already popular will continue to be all anyone has meaningful access to.

Seems to me that the US government are the only people in the Western world doing anything at all to protect our intellectual property. The bill might need some tidying up but I think it's intentions are clear and, if they get it right, should be of great benefit to us. Piracy is good for criminals and bad for law-abiding citizens. It's just theft __ plain and simple.

Seems to me that the US government are the only people in the Western world doing anything at all to protect our intellectual property. The bill might need some tidying up but I think it's intentions are clear and, if they get it right, should be of great benefit to us. Piracy is good for criminals and bad for law-abiding citizens. It's just theft __ plain and simple.

Agreed.  All I want is for Congress to get it right, so it can stand as a great example for the rest of the world.

I really don't know, Traveler.  Would IS be in US jurisdiction as a Getty-owned company or Canadian jurisdiction as it states in our ASA?  Just using them as an example.

Wikipedia makes a good point about websites using hosting services in other countries.

Quote

We depend on a legal infrastructure that makes it possible for us to operate. And we depend on a legal infrastructure that also allows other sites to host user-contributed material, both information and expression. For the most part, Wikimedia projects are organizing and summarizing and collecting the world�s knowledge. We�re putting it in context, and showing people how to make to sense of it.

But that knowledge has to be published somewhere for anyone to find and use it. Where it can be censored without due process, it hurts the speaker, the public, and Wikimedia. Where you can only speak if you have sufficient resources to fight legal challenges, or if your views are pre-approved by someone who does, the same narrow set of ideas already popular will continue to be all anyone has meaningful access to.

You do make good points.. There are negative aspects.. But I "really" don't see how it is bad for us, content owners, copyright holders! I understand why it is bad for youtube, wikipedia or wordpress etc.

But for us, original content creators, this sounds like a beautiful thing.. as gostwyck stated, if done properly this will benefit us a lot!

I am not saying it is great for global internet companies who rely on content published by regular internet users.. That is another discussion topic..

I'm all for protecting our IP, but as stated above, there is a huge potential for misunderstandings and misuse the way the law is written now. I also wonder what effect it would have on a hosting company if sites hosted there were blacklisted...

That could be a giant problem for web developers like me!

I would like to see something like this in place, but it would have to have much more thought put into it first.

but it would have to have much more thought put into it first.

I agree,

but even if it does pass as it is right now, It is still good for us.. Because we are similar to motion picture industry as we rely on copyright, to get paid..