Basically everyone of those companies you listed has a LOT to lose because they host or link to copyright materials. Can you show me an example of a company that is very against SOPA, who actually makes original content for sale as their main source of income?
You've highlighted one of the very problems that has raised the concern about this SOPA bill.
You said that everyone of the companies I listed has a lot to lose 'because they host or link to copyright materials'.
My response to that is, "really?". All of the companies I listed links to or hosts copyrighted material? No. Sure, maybe they all LINK to copyrighted material in some way - but they sure as hell don't all host copyrighted material.
So now we've refined what has been said, and we can say that they all do NOT support SOPA because all of the companies there contain LINKS to copyrighted material. If you had said that, then yes - I would agree with your statement. They do all, more than likely, somewhere, have at least a link to copyrighted material.
But, there we have the problem. Do you really think it's fair to take down a site, or otherwise punish a website by restricting it's ability to run their business (Govco. can remove their payment processors) simply because a user of theirs dropped a link to a potentially 'copyrighted' file or website?
That's where the whole problem is. These companies don't blatantly host copyrighted material, but many of them might indirectly link to it. And in those cases where they might be linking to it, more than likely a user of their service has dropped the link. So why should the website be punished for it?
Just like you said, they'd have to spend a ton of money to try and enforce something as stupendously silly as removing 'subjective links'. Let's assume that they COULD afford to even do something so massive, as to check all links. If this was the case, to use a simple example, Facebook wouldn't be what it is today. Can you imagine posting a status or a reply to someones comment - and having it not show immediately because it needs to be 'checked'?
How absolutely ridiculous would that be. That's SOPA right there for you. Reaching way too far and pretty much invading the business space and operations of legitimate websites like Facebook (in the above example).
By your own explanation, these companies are against SOPA because even linking to a potentially copyrighted website or file could get them punished or taken down - do you think that's wrong of them? I certainly wouldn't want to risk any of my websites going down because someone left a comment on my blog linking to a site distributing copyrighted files/music/whatever.
Going by the whole 'links to copyrighted content' this forum right here would NOT exist. Thousands of other forums ALL OVER the net wouldn't exist. The impacts are insanely far reaching - and in this case, TOO far. It should be stopped. It is absolutely ridiculous.
Now, I haven't provided you a list as you asked because your initial statement wasn't completely correct. However, in the same respect, I would ask that you dissect the list (that I have already provided for you) and please tell me how each of those companies would somehow be benefiting from opposing SOPA. For the most part, all you're going to come up with is "they link to copyrighted content" - and we've already discussed just how absurd it would be to TAKE DOWN websites for something as little as a hyperlink.
If SOPA passed, it may mean that any content sharing sites or hosts would have to moderate everything before it goes live on the internet. That would be a HUGE headache, and most probably would be impossible for 99% of companies to do. But if we wanted to watch things, we could get it through LEGAL avenues, or choose to live without it.
That's it right there, isn't it? You've just said it yourself, it would be likely impossible for 99% of companies to moderate user generated content. By your own statement, most of these websites would have to shut down (or be forced shut down anyway by SOPA) because of impractical expectation to moderate all of this content.
You say it would be fine, though, because you would obtain said content through legal channels. Can you name these 'legal' avenues for me please? If the file sharing sites are ALL shut down due to the impractical approach of moderating all uploaded content - what legal avenues are we left with?
We wouldn't even have a practical and efficient way of sharing content with people (legitimate content) because file sharing sites would be non-existent. All because of SOPA sticking it's nose way too deep.
I enjoy streaming movies and music, but I recognize it is illegal and can't be mad that people want to profit from their own creations. People act like there wouldn't be further fine tuning of SOPA and that the government would act without reasonable thinking to shut down websites.
You must be the first person I have ever come across that has full faith in the Government to 'do the right thing'. Honestly, I've never met a person with such a trust in his/her Government.
Are you suggesting SOPA should pass in its current form - and then just wait for the US Gov. to come along and make amendments that the 'people' want? You must be kidding. They're not listening to us NOW, what makes you think they're going to listen when it's already IN PLACE?
Had SOPA already been introduced before WikiLeaks, it's likely most of us would have never even heard of the site. Is that something you would enjoy? Being kept completely in the dark. The US Government, if it has the power, would have definitely taken the website down as soon as it possibly could have, to spare themselves the embarrassment that it has caused.
Would you consider the above action 'reasonable thinking' by the Government? It's not like you can say "they wouldn't have done that" - considering we already know they cut off their funding. We would have never known about any of the WikiLeaks content - and personally, I would rather have the freedom to see what's on that site rather than not be aware of it's existence.
There is no trust for the government, and THAT is why people are afraid. The government has a LOT of power to do crazy things already, that doesn't mean they do it just on a whim. What if when SOPA was passed, they further created a Board of Directors which had to approve actions with an 70% approval or higher, and it was made up of people from many top companies INCLUDING Sony, Google, Paypal etc. Would it be so bad then?
With respect, you're taking it out of context. There has been no mention of a Board of Directors and thus it is merely wishful thinking.
You state it yourself, that the people do not trust the Government - because of the crazy things that they have done, and continue to do. I'm wondering where your continued trust and belief in the Government is coming from. This is a serious law, and we shouldn't give the Government the benefit of the doubt.
We know the Government is crazy. We know that the law, on paper, looks crazy. We'd have to be crazy to think its not a cause for concern.
