I just have to put this out there because it seems the hundreds or thousands of artistic protestors of SOPA are protesting the wrong thing! SOPA is NOT censorship. At least not in the way that it is being shown by artists. Commonly, an anti-sopa poster or drawing will show parts of the a person, a face, the earth, or even the internet being CENSORED. That isnt what SOPA does. Sopa is meant to protect against piracy, and is more specifically meant for taking down foreign websites that infringe on copyrights. Now this would be fine and dandy, but SOPA has such a general definition of aiding or conducting piracy that it leaves thousands upon thousands of regularly used sites in the crossfire.

This is not censorship, though, because copyright infringement IS a crime, so its not like they are filtering websites, they are punishing them by taking them down. This could be for something as simple as a link, or even something submitted on a portal by a random person. This would constitute the site being taken down. I would say this is a lot closer to secret police than censorship, and its far scarier. Unlike censorship, which is targeted, SOPA can affect any website, from Facebook and Twitter, to Newgrounds and even Stickpage. All it would take is for someone to post a copyright infringing material and the entire site could be gone without warning. Not even the owners themselves would know until its already too late.

SOPA isnt censorship, its FAR, FAR WORSE!

That's why we hate SOPA, wait....what if an australian webiste had copyrighted australian stuff, seeing as how SOPA's american, would they still take it down?

Sounds like it, so yes?

I would consider that a declaration of war...(I'm full on serious)

Quote from Javelin

I would consider that a declaration of war...(I'm full on serious)

well seeing as how copyright is international, thats not out of bounds, and it would have to be reported to be taken down anyways. The whole point is to take down foreign sites that have stolen copyrighted material.

But that's stolen from america, if it was reported, I try and track down evryone single person that's part of SOPA, and tell them that their doing the wrong thing, people will be less interested in things if they can get them online for free, and I think people call it censorship so that more people will fight the evil fucks.

Quote from cmkinusn

This is not censorship, though, because copyright infringement IS a crime, so its not like they are filtering websites, they are punishing them by taking them down.

What is your definition of censorship then?

Imagine there was a law in Elbonia against saying anti-government things. All newspapers in Elbonia have to go through a government office before publication where officials will read the newspapers and if they find any article breaks this law they will order it to be cut out. If a newspaper refuses and prints the article anyway, the entire newspaper is shut down. Is this not an example of censorship, even though what is being cut is illegal?

Zed, I love you and your way making things so..

SOPA ... is Shit... anyway

Quote from cmkinusn

This is not censorship, though, because copyright infringement IS a crime, so its not like they are filtering websites, they are punishing them by taking them down. This could be for something as simple as a link, or even something submitted on a portal by a random person. This would constitute the site being taken down.

"oh, you want to publish this incriminating evidence? too bad we have this here trump card evidence of your website having piracy related content so we can take down your entire website if you do"

I somewhat agree, but you are misunderstanding something. SOPA is of course not censorship, but your definition is not right. If someone just posts something that involves copyright infringement, basicly the whole site is down. That means that YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Google+, Livestream, Join.me, and all the other regular-used sites will be shut down. Join.me and Livestream will be shut down because people play music. In one of the videos, a person was playing music in the background while video-taping a baby dancing. She got charged for that. Basicly, you are agreeing with SOPA and it's devastating impacts toward the internet. >:| I dun like.

Quote from Scarecrow

"oh, you want to publish this incriminating evidence? too bad we have this here trump card evidence of your website having piracy related content so we can take down your entire website if you do"

Yeah, I think that any censorship is completely incidental to the SOPA bill, and thats why I hate the bill. It ALLOWS censorship, it allows corrupt actions such as this, it gives the few the ability to stifle the many.

Quote from Yun

I somewhat agree, but you are misunderstanding something. SOPA is of course not censorship, but your definition is not right. If someone just posts something that involves copyright infringement, basicly the whole site is down. That means that YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Google+, Livestream, Join.me, and all the other regular-used sites will be shut down. Join.me and Livestream will be shut down because people play music. In one of the videos, a person was playing music in the background while video-taping a baby dancing. She got charged for that. Basicly, you are agreeing with SOPA and it's devastating impacts toward the internet. >:| I dun like.

No, I hate SOPA. As I said, it is FAR FAR WORSE than censorship. It targets everyone, not just a select group, and it is a terrifying bill.

Quote from Zed

What is your definition of censorship then?

Imagine there was a law in Elbonia against saying anti-government things. All newspapers in Elbonia have to go through a government office before publication where officials will read the newspapers and if they find any article breaks this law they will order it to be cut out. If a newspaper refuses and prints the article anyway, the entire newspaper is shut down. Is this not an example of censorship, even though what is being cut is illegal?

The reason I dont think they are the same is that this bill doesnt just say that THIS kind of copyright infringement will be punished. It says ALL copyright infringement will be punished. (without warning) So if you could imagine the same country passes this law:

"ANY harmful or slanderous statements about anyone in the news will be ordered cut out, and the newspaper shut down without warning." (see, they dont even give the newspaper a chance to cut out the offending statement)

Whatever the means of punishment, the principle is still "it is illegal to say x, y, or z". Seems like censorship to me.

Although arguing over the semantics of it all seems pointless.

Quote from Zed

Whatever the means of punishment, the principle is still "it is illegal to say x, y, or z". Seems like censorship to me.

Although arguing over the semantics of it all seems pointless.

Yeah, the main point I was trying to make was that most dont understand the complete implications of this bill. Its far worse than just censoring!

well in that case your thread is going in the wrong direction. you'd have been better to say "it isn't JUST censorship"