It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Alternative to SOPA

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 11:56 PM
link   
It seems that some major tech companies like Google, Facebook, Twitter, eBay, AOL, Zynga, Yahoo! and others are getting behind this new alternative to SOPA.
Story

I haven't delved into the Online Protection & ENforcement of Digital Trade Act yet, but it looks interesting to say the least. Far better than SOPA anyway.

Heres a couple short vids on what OPEN means to:
Congressman Darrell Issa

Senator Ron Wyden

Congressman Jason Chaffetz

Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren


A comparison of the bills: OPENact, SOPA, PROTECT IP:


I will comment further after looking over the language a little more. Looks promising so far.


Edit
Also here is a nice list of 927 influential people and companies who are Expressing Concern With SOPA and PIPA
edit on 8-1-2012 by ShadowLink because: Added list.




posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 12:20 AM
link   
I'm no lawyer, but I was reading over the new proposal and I had a problem with sec. 2 7 A
INTERNET SITE DEDICATED TO INFRINGING ACTIVITY because it refers to a site that, "(ii) conducts business directed to residents of the United States"

I don't know exactly what that means but it sounds pretty broad. I've never owned a business, so I've never encountered a site like that or the problems inherent.

Maybe it's not a big deal, but any censorship should be met with sensible discourse and prudence.
edit on 1/8/2012 by MeesterB because: Verb tense correction



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by MeesterB
 

Agreed, I am no lawyer either and a lot of what I read so far is admitedly too think for me.


Perhaps someone else more learned in legaleze would like to provide their interpretation of what they see.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by ShadowLink
 

It probably says the equivalent of "All Your Bases Are Belong To Us."

Maybe we should just make it "SOPA-on-a-ROPA" and we let the politicians be the SOPA...
Oops, thinking aloud! Soon I won't even need to do that before they can detect my thoughts via electronic sensory means...



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 12:42 AM
link   
reply to post by LightSpeedDriver
 


sadly, SOPA on a ROPA won't save us from a sound censorship butt f--king



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 12:44 AM
link   
Someone help me here, but I don't see why we need an alternative? I missed where we needed ANYTHING done at all?? What precisely is the actual problem being solved with this?

To some degree the movie and music industry need to simply get over themselves and stop trying to change reality. They need to adapt to it and learn to work it. Google sure managed and continues to. Entertainment businesses can learn to innovate too....or go under.

For the worst violators, we already have laws in several directions that more than cover that by either criminal or civil. They're already outright dropping domains from the net when it strikes them, so they don't need this for that power either. Tell 'em NO to new laws. We have far too many already.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 12:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 

Well said, and you are absolutely right about not needing anymore laws.

My thinking with this post was that they are probably gonna make a law regardless of what happens to SOPA (seems that's all they ever do anymore) but the alternative might be better than what SOPA was.

Oh and "SOPA-on-a-ROPA"

I wouldn't worry too much about your thoughts being detected. Soon no one will have thoughts of their own.
We are already being guided what to think and feel, it's just a matter of time before they can force it.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 12:57 AM
link   
I don't remember exactly where I saw it, but there was a proposal recently that made sense. Basically, the answer is to write laws in simple English. Say what they want to say, and leave out all the stuph that ultimately leads to all the subjective interpretations they claim ti be avoiding. If a law needs to say it will be illegal to overtly pirate copyrighted material, do they really need 2 million sections, paragraphs, subsections, etc?

This approach would help in tax law for certain.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 01:04 AM
link   
reply to post by samstone11
 

Truer words have rarely been spoken.

When I was younger I often wondered why legal documents and laws were written to be so complicated.
For a time I thought maybe I just wasn't smart enough or had a large enough vocabulary to make sense of them. Maybe I still don't.

I think now, that it's just to confuse the average Joe and complicate things and prolong the debates in the senate.
It's no wonder it takes law makers so long to pass laws.

From what I hear and read, many bill don't even get read ffs! Perhaps this is cause of the complexity of them and the irritation from trying to make heads or tales of them.

Things would be so much easier, and probably save a lot of money if they simplified it all.




top topics



 
2

log in

join