What do you think about the new SOPA bill ?
Printable View
What do you think about the new SOPA bill ?
Like all laws it will only be effective if it is enforced.
Does the U.S. have the manpower to go after violations? Who is paying for them?
We will see....
I think of cheap offshore boiler rooms, Amazon Mechanical Turk, Rent-A-Coder, etc. Nothing says a U.S. law would be implemented using U.S. labor.
Most of the effort would be to scan sites with bots for possible hits, pass the positives to a meat-bot for additional template-based confirmation, then fire off an electronic form to the ISP to shut down the site and notify law enforcement (or some cheap right-out-of-shool lawyers).
I heard that, there will be life imprisonment of 25 years by this law, if found guilty !
No SOPA... radio.
...and that means ??? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by penagate
My understanding of the bill is that pretty much anyone can claim a violation against a site; the government need not be directly involved in the mediation. "Who's paying" will be anyone with money who wants to see a site go down - presumably a lot of media corporations.Quote:
Does the U.S. have the manpower to go after violations? Who is paying for them?
It's a disturbingly broad and ill-intentioned bill that would enable censorship more than it would prevent piracy.
There are other similar things going on already.
For example there are outfits that market to doctors, dentists, and lawyers. They "sell" a prepackaged agreement the docs, etc. make clients sign, promising they won't post negative reviews on line. Then they use bots to scan the web for anything that looks like a negative comment (by anyone), turn these over to meat-bots for screening, and then go after the site and the individuals.
When they can figure out an actual person they send lawsuit-threatening letters and demand like $100/month in damages until the bad review is taken down. If you don't pay they send it to a collection agency and use it to destroy your credit rating.
These scumbags are so bold they even advertise on Public Radio here, hoping to hit a professional audience. One more legacy of the policies set in the U.S. by puppets of the elite fringe, who don't understand that Fox News is an entertainment tabloid and propaganda outlet, not a news channel.
Unless your comments were libelous, I'd imagine you could get this thrown out by a judge; you can't be held liable for opinions. Even if you signed a contract, I don't think you can contractually waive your rights (freedom of speech).Quote:
When they can figure out an actual person they send lawsuit-threatening letters and demand like $100/month in damages until the bad review is taken down. If you don't pay they send it to a collection agency and use it to destroy your credit rating.
Doen't seem to matter. I guess they hope they'll browbeat/scare people and collect a few dollars from those who won't go find a lawyer and sue them.
Freedom of speech? I think you forget where we live these days.
Here is one news article, sorry about any ad they force into your face: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirh...-should-order/
Yes, I'm sure their bread and butter are folks who don't know their rights and won't fight. But, as your article shows, sooner or later someone bigger often catches wind of their shenanigans and brings an investigation. "The non-profit ... will be retiring the 'mutual privacy agreements'..." Sounds like their jig is up.
As I understand it, ILECs, ISPs, and Hosting companies are supposed to be the Internet police should the bill become law. Supposedly, they will be liable if piracy happens on their watch.
Maybe that is why enormous companies want no part of this legislation, and have openly said so to the US Congress.