Anonymous attacking Sony for supporting SOPA

And I'm sure the website owners that would be affected by SOPA would like the RIGHT to defend their websites from being shut down in court. But they can't under this law they are FORCIBLY shut down with out any type of hearing, court case or anything.

Do you have any proof of SOPA in action? No, you don't. You are simply ASSUMING how the action will work. Once again, just because the courts have the RIGHT to order something taken down immediately, doesn't mean they will do it without notifying the site first. A site like YouTube or Google would NEVER be taken down without warning.

The government can already seize websites without notifying the owners and discussing it with them. This is the main reason why I don't understand everyones concern. The government is already badasses with unlimited power. They just want to involve the copyright owners more directly, and they want the power to not only seize the sites, but to completely erase the sites from the internet, and stop them from gaining money.

seized-domains.jpg
 
Do you have any proof of SOPA in action? No, you don't. You are simply ASSUMING how the action will work. Once again, just because the courts have the RIGHT to order something taken down immediately, doesn't mean they will do it without notifying the site first. A site like YouTube or Google would NEVER be taken down without warning.

The government can already seize websites without notifying the owners and discussing it with them. This is the main reason why I don't understand everyones concern. The government is already badasses with unlimited power. They just want to involve the copyright owners more directly, and they want the power to not only seize the sites, but to completely erase the sites from the internet, and stop them from gaining money.

seized-domains.jpg


The actually do go to court for the seizure,its just the majority of people invloved are overseas and don't respond to it, they just buy a new domain.
 
The actually do go to court for the seizure,its just the majority of people invloved are overseas and don't respond to it, they just buy a new domain.

http://whois.domaintools.com/putlocker.com

Notice the "Whois History: 405 records have been archived since 2010-11-08"

Im pretty sure the reason they change the owner every day is to circumvent things like legal documents.

I dont know for sure, as I'm no piracy expert.
 
The actually do go to court for the seizure,its just the majority of people invloved are overseas and don't respond to it, they just buy a new domain.

I don't think so. How did this happen then?

http://www.infoworld.com/t/regulation/feds-wrongly-links-84000-seized-sites-child-porn-966

I don't believe the ICE seizures have to notify the owners of the sites before the action. I believe it's like a search warrant, where ICE/Homeland Security provides evidence to a judge, and the judge makes the decision on what they want to allow.

I just read basically the entire chapter relating to this part of the US Code, and everything I saw says that the as long as a judge issues them a warrant, ICE/Homeland can just take it first, and if you want it back, you have to file an appeal in district court.

I don't see any mention of notifying or attempting to notify owners of sites before hand.
 
Do you have any proof of SOPA in action? No, you don't. You are simply ASSUMING how the action will work. Once again, just because the courts have the RIGHT to order something taken down immediately, doesn't mean they will do it without notifying the site first. A site like YouTube or Google would NEVER be taken down without warning.

The government can already seize websites without notifying the owners and discussing it with them. This is the main reason why I don't understand everyones concern. The government is already badasses with unlimited power. They just want to involve the copyright owners more directly, and they want the power to not only seize the sites, but to completely erase the sites from the internet, and stop them from gaining money.

seized-domains.jpg

They couldn't take down wikileaks =p
I mean if the government is 'badasses with unlimited power', wouldn't it be better to not give them any more? Or are you implying that we're already screwed so we might as well give up and just let governments do as they please?

I don't get why anyone would want restrictions like this on the internet (except the obvious) if you have a choice. I mean isn't it a clear cut choice? Do you want the internet to be more or less restricted?

Kickflip you ask, how does this effect you? Why should you care? Convince me etc.

What about, how would SOPA benefit you? Convince us that SOPA is a good thing that can benefit us. How will it benefit IMers and the internet + users as a whole in the short and long run? (I'm genuinely interested btw). If there is no benefit to us and only the possibility of negative effects, why would we want it?

It reminds me of the Miranda Warning: "Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law." What you say will never be used for your benefit. So why say anything?
 
They couldn't take down wikileaks =p
I mean if the government is 'badasses with unlimited power', wouldn't it be better to not give them any more? Or are you implying that we're already screwed so we might as well give up and just let governments do as they please?

I don't get why anyone would want restrictions like this on the internet (except the obvious) if you have a choice. I mean isn't it a clear cut choice? Do you want the internet to be more or less restricted?

Kickflip you ask, how does this effect you? Why should you care? Convince me etc.

What about, how would SOPA benefit you? Convince us that SOPA is a good thing that can benefit us. How will it benefit IMers and the internet + users as a whole in the short and long run? (I'm genuinely interested btw). If there is no benefit to us and only the possibility of negative effects, why would we want it?

I already stated why SOPA can be a good thing. The intentions with SOPA is that they only use it against confirmed cases of sites willfully posting and profiting from copyright materials they have no right to share. The "pro-sopa" officials LAUGH at the thought that SOPA would be used to take down Google or YouTube, because that is NOT what they plan to use it for.

So, SOPA can help make it harder for illegal videos and music streaming. This will possible cause more people to purchase these products legally, giving more profits to the creators,and allowing them to lower their prices. They may also work with a distributor to offer more in-home legal streaming options through the internet at fair prices.

Netflix is actually primed for a takeover, and has all of the systems in place to make this happen. If a large corporation like Redbox tookover Netflix, and worked out a deal to become a distributor of New Releases 1 week before they came available on DVD for $3.00 or $4.00, they may have something that works.

Thats just spitballing. It should also help the overall economy, because instead of people staying home to stream movies, they go out to the movies more, so new jobs are being created. How many theaters closed down and jobs lost in the entertainment industry over the last few years? A ton. Movie studios are PISSED about pirates, so they raise their prices to make it a social stigma to download and stream illegally.
 
I already stated why SOPA can be a good thing. The intentions with SOPA is that they only use it against confirmed cases of sites willfully posting and profiting from copyright materials they have no right to share. The "pro-sopa" officials LAUGH at the thought that SOPA would be used to take down Google or YouTube, because that is NOT what they plan to use it for.

So, SOPA can help make it harder for illegal videos and music streaming. This will possible cause more people to purchase these products legally, giving more profits to the creators,and allowing them to lower their prices. They may also work with a distributor to offer more in-home legal streaming options through the internet at fair prices.

Netflix is actually primed for a takeover, and has all of the systems in place to make this happen. If a large corporation like Redbox tookover Netflix, and worked out a deal to become a distributor of New Releases 1 week before they came available on DVD for $3.00 or $4.00, they may have something that works.

Thats just spitballing. It should also help the overall economy, because instead of people staying home to stream movies, they go out to the movies more, so new jobs are being created. How many theaters closed down and jobs lost in the entertainment industry over the last few years? A ton. Movie studios are PISSED about pirates, so they raise their prices to make it a social stigma to download and stream illegally.

You raise good points, but do you think that this would actually stop pirating on the internet? Pirating has done great things for the music industry. Instead of manufactured bands/musicians that have the marketing power of a large record label (who are completely screwing the musicians out of royalties) being some of the only ones that can become massively popular, it gives others a chance. They just have to be good. It gives smaller bands/musicians a chance rather than it just being a massive monopoly for few.

Pirating also encourages people to listen to a larger range of music and spend more at festivals and shows. It increased a lot of competition and inspiration, due to so much music being easily available to musicians. Thank piracy for the huge diversity in music these days.

It also encourages bands to tour more (this is were a lot of musicians are turning to make money), which stimulates economies. Did you know, unless you are with specific record labels (Sony, Warner etc.), you won't be played on most commercial radio stations? This is because record labels have made deals with the stations and are after royalties (which they have screwed many musicians out of).

I find it pretty bad that DVDs and blurays still have higher quality audio than a standard CD still. After recordings are mixed and mastered, it must be dithered to 44.1khz 16bit (lowered in quality) to put it on a CD. SACD (Super Audio CDs) were created in 1999, with much higher quality. But practically nothing was released on it and isn't being used to this day. Before piracy, CDs were a lot more expensive (in Australia anyway), probably because if the price is set too high, people will just download it.

The profit margin was/is too high with CDs to use anything else. CDs are pieces of junk with junk quality. This is a reason why vinyl has actually increased in sales since the piracy boom. If record labels embraced a new format, to make it worthwhile to buy music, people would buy. They are not providing enough value.

If most people started using legal streaming, wouldn't that still result in people staying home and not going to the cinema? I would think less would go out to the cinemas because they will have less money to spend after streaming costs (the streaming money is sent out of the users economy unless the streaming service is from their country or the movie is from their country). Local video rental stores will suffer even more due to this. Production costs are also reducing due to advances in technology for both film and music.

We should be moving forward, not trying to desperately hold onto the past in my opinion. Adapt or perish.

The reason I do not agree with SOPA is only because it is a form of censorship. It's not about being able to pirate anything you want.
 
You raise good points, but do you think that this would actually stop pirating on the internet? Pirating has done great things for the music industry. Instead of manufactured bands/musicians that have the marketing power of a large record label (who are completely screwing the musicians out of royalties) being some of the only ones that can become massively popular, it gives others a chance. They just have to be good. It gives smaller bands/musicians a chance rather than it just being a massive monopoly for few.

Pirating also encourages people to listen to a larger range of music and spend more at festivals and shows. It increased a lot of competition and inspiration, due to so much music being easily available to musicians. Thank piracy for the huge diversity in music these days.

It also encourages bands to tour more (this is were a lot of musicians are turning to make money), which stimulates economies. Did you know, unless you are with specific record labels (Sony, Warner etc.), you won't be played on most commercial radio stations? This is because record labels have made deals with the stations and are after royalties (which they have screwed many musicians out of).

I find it pretty bad that DVDs and blurays still have higher quality audio than a standard CD still. After recordings are mixed and mastered, it must be dithered to 44.1khz 16bit (lowered in quality) to put it on a CD. SACD (Super Audio CDs) were created in 1999, with much higher quality. But practically nothing was released on it and isn't being used to this day. Before piracy, CDs were a lot more expensive (in Australia anyway), probably because if the price is set too high, people will just download it.

The profit margin was/is too high with CDs to use anything else. CDs are pieces of junk with junk quality. This is a reason why vinyl has actually increased in sales since the piracy boom. If record labels embraced a new format, to make it worthwhile to buy music, people would buy. They are not providing enough value.

If most people started using legal streaming, wouldn't that still result in people staying home and not going to the cinema? I would think less would go out to the cinemas because they will have less money to spend after streaming costs (the streaming money is sent out of the users economy unless the streaming service is from their country or the movie is from their country). Local video rental stores will suffer even more due to this. Production costs are also reducing due to advances in technology for both film and music.

We should be moving forward, not trying to desperately hold onto the past in my opinion. Adapt or perish.

The reason I do not agree with SOPA is only because it is a form of censorship. It's not about being able to pirate anything you want.

That pisses me off so much,theres so many good artists from Europe,that don't have their songs played on the u.s. radio until months after it has been out. Mr SaxoBeat wasn't played on the radio stations where I live for like 8-9 months after it came out. Thankfully I found tunein for my blackberry and ipad. It lets me listen to about 50,000 radio stations from all over the world.

@kickflip but aren't the sites not really being seized its just the DNS providers that are being forced to change their listing of the ip that is connected to the domain?
 
Last edited:
Why don't the movie companies just get into owning movie theaters,that way they can charge less for tickets,since they are cutting out the middle man,and make more since more people will be able to go to the movies more often. They also need to stop having such long waiting times for releases in different countries. For example Beauty and the Beast is being released in 3D. First 3D release date was 2 sept. 2010 for Australia and last one is 2 Feb 2012 for Hong Kong. I'm going on IMDB info,so not sure if there is going to be later releases. With non 3D movies,this leads to easy piracy.
 
Last edited:
Why don't the movie companies just get into owning movie theaters,that way they can charge less for tickets,since they are cutting out the middle man,and make more since more people will be able to go to the movies more often. They also need to stop having such long waiting times for releases in different countries. For example Beauty and the Beast is being released in 3D. First 3D release date was 2 sept. 2010 for Australia and last one is 2 Feb 2012 for Hong Kong. I'm going on IMDB info,so not sure if there is going to be later releases. With non 3D movies,this leads to easy piracy.

The "middle man" doesn't take a big cut when it comes to owning movie theaters. They aren't huge cash cows. If the movie companies opened their own movie theaters, they still need to pay management and employees, and rent/taxes etc. The prices would not be lowered in this way. Most movie theater owners work as management, or own the theaters for the love of it, not for the money.

And lastly, the movie production companies are all competing with each other, so they would have to agree to charge the same amounts to show each others films, which wouldn't bring down prices at all.
 
The "middle man" doesn't take a big cut when it comes to owning movie theaters. They aren't huge cash cows. If the movie companies opened their own movie theaters, they still need to pay management and employees, and rent/taxes etc. The prices would not be lowered in this way. Most movie theater owners work as management, or own the theaters for the love of it, not for the money.

And lastly, the movie production companies are all competing with each other, so they would have to agree to charge the same amounts to show each others films, which wouldn't bring down prices at all.

I didn't think of the last part,it would probably lead to some anti-trust break up of the studio companies down the line. Which would be worse then what the piracy does to the industry. But what do you think of the big disparity in release times of movies? That one movie I mentioned had a 17 month difference between first release and last one listed.
 
i think its a huge topic. but that video had ton of real facts. lets all be honest. the world is based on people like them scamming us. #poor and what a shame
 
Back
Top