Thread: NEWS on Stop Online Piracy Act! Close ps3iso?

yeah i agree Ces live today made over 150.000 calls to the Senate bill The Protect IP Act we must Continue the pressure on them untill both bills are dead

more news guys.Six GOP Co-Sponsors of PIPA Ask Reid to Cancel Vote
January 13, 2012 - by Donny Shaw

In an incredible turn of events, six Republican Senators have asked Majority Leader Harry Reid not to hold a vote on PIPA, the Senate version of SOPA.

They write, “Prior to committee action, some members expressed substantive concerns about the bill, and there was a commitment to resolve them prior to floor consideration. That resolution has not yet occurred.”

And as an amazing validation of the grassroots response to SOPA, led by groups like Fight for the Future, EFF, Public Knowledge, and Demand Progress, they write, “Since the mark-up, we have increasingly heard from a large number of constituents and other stakeholders with vocal concerns about possible unintended consequences of the proposed legislation, including breaches in cybersecurity, damaging the integrity of the Internet, costly and burdensome litigation, and dilution of First Amendment rights.”

Senators Charles Grassley, Orrin Hatch, Jeff Sessions, John Cornyn, Mike Lee, and Tom Coburn signed the letter.

Here’s the text of the letter. PDF is here.

January 13, 2012

Dear Majority Leader Reid:

We write to express our concerns with your decision to file cloture on the motion to proceed to the PROTECT IP Act (S, 968), We strongly believe that the theft of American intellectual property is a significant problem that must be addressed to protect property rights. However, for both substantive and procedural reasons, the process at this point is moving too quickly and this step may be premature.

As you know, on May 26. 2011. the Senate Judiciary- Committee favorably reported the bill by voice vote. Prior to committee action, some members expressed substantive concerns about the bill, and there was a commitment to resolve them prior to floor consideration. That resolution has not yet occurred.

Since the mark-up, we have increasingly heard from a large number of constituents and other stakeholders with vocal concerns about possible unintended consequences of the proposed legislation, including breaches in cybersecurity, damaging the integrity of the Internet, costly and burdensome litigation, and dilution of First Amendment rights. Moreover, in light of potential cybersecurity implications, we believe hearing from the Administration and relevant agencies is imperative, As always, our current fiscal crisis demands we carefully consider legislation that would cost taxpayers up to $48 million according to the Congressional Budget Office, These are serious issues that must be considered in an informed, deliberative and responsible manner. This underscores the need to resolve as many outstanding concerns as possible prior to proceeding to floor consideration.

Furthermore, we want to ensure that S. 968 will be afforded full and fair consideration on the Senate floor. It is important that the bill be fully debated and amendments not limited. We would like a firm commitment that once the Senate considers S. 968, the amendment process will be open, with senators being able to offer their amendments without the filling of the amendment tree, and that cloture will not be prematurely filed on the bin.

We are all in agreement that the online distribution and sale of pirated content and counterfeit goods impose a huge cost on the American economy in terms of lost jobs, lost sales, lost innovation and lost income. We also believe, however, that we need to arrive at the right solution in the right way on this important issue. To do so, we must have adequate time to properly analyze and resolve these concerns to the best extent possible prior to proceeding to the bill.

While we remain fully committed to addressing outstanding issues with S. 968, we believe that, at this point, the scheduled consideration of the bill on January 24, 2012, may not permit Oslo work through many of the concems that have been raised.

Sincerely,

Charles Grassley, Orrin Hatch, Jeff Sessions, John Cornyn, Mike Lee, Tom Coburn

UPDATE: And Sen. Ben Cardin [D, MD] adds his name to the list of co-sponsors walking back their support. Full up-to-date vote tally here. And

The White House Comes Out Against SOPA
+ Comment now
65

40

18

3

0


Conservatives and Liberals alike have been telling me I’m being naive for believing that President Obama, a sane individual, would not support bills like SOPA or PIPA if they were passed and sent to his desk. The man was practically elected president due to his ability to work the internet for campaign cash and grassroots support, and I believe him to be tech savvy enough to recognize how these bills would decimate the web and tech industry.

Though he’s not faced with possibly having to sign either bill into law yet, the Obama White House has come out with an official response to the anti-SOPA petitions on Whitehouse.gov. It’s a lengthy rebuttal, but here’s the most important part:

“While we believe that online piracy by foreign websites is a serious problem that requires a serious legislative response, we will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet.”

Now, I was tenatively going to title this post with a “Game Over” at the beginning, as this sort of condemnation would indicate that the current bills are now useless as they’d never get his signature, but reading on, I’m not exactly clear on the fine print.

“That is why the Administration calls on all sides to work together to pass sound legislation this year that provides prosecutors and rights holders new legal tools to combat online piracy originating beyond U.S. borders”

So they do want to pass some sort of anti-piracy legislation this year, but one that doesn’t kill the entire internet. Admirable, I suppose, but what does that mean? If the parts of the bills that mandate courts to force ISP to block access to sites are stripped (and indications are that they will be) is that enough for the White House to support them? That’s unclear.

Much of the response is dedicated to crowdsourcing new ideas about how this goal of an internet friendly anti-piracy bill might work, if such a thing is even possible without direct government or corporate censorship of the internet.

The problem is that I don’t think you’re going to find a solution without violating first amendment rights. This entire “stop foreign sites from stealing American IP” idea that requires a “serious legislative response” is tantamount to telling other countries that since your laws aren’t good enough, we’re making new ones for you. As much as I love my country, we do not have that kind of jurisdiction in other nations than our own.

While there are legitimate concerns about copyright protection in today’s society, it’s hard to take the movie and music companies seriously when in the past they’ve claimed that technological advancements like radio and VHS tapes were going to kill their industry. Now it’s torrents and YouTube, and it’s the end of days for media, they swear. You’d think they’d realize by now to try and adapt rather than fight a long and bloody war they will never, ever win. Can you imagine the music industry spending millions to lobby Congress to kill the radio eighty years ago? It’s silly, but just as silly as what’s happening now.

To quote gaming mogul Gabe Newell, “Piracy is a service problem.” His company, Valve, puts customers first by giving them the best product possible for the lowest price they can, and his distribution client, Steam has seen a hundred percent growth over the last seven years because of such practices. In an age when movie tickets are $15 apiece and we’re paying $80 a month for 895 cable channels we never watch, it’s hard to say the entertainment industry is trying their hardest to truly fight piracy by offering the best products and services they can.

The fact that the White House appears to be dismissing SOPA and PIPA in their current forms is certainly a good step forward, but any talk of internet censorship, whether it be of foreign or domestic sites, is unconstitutional. Not to mention the fact that our government should not doing the bidding of companies that think an appropriate response for downloading a few songs is a million dollar fine or jail time.

SOPA and PIPA can’t just be slowed or changed, they must be crushed. And we’re almost there. some good news

more news guys Sopa hearing canceled please read. White House: Anti-Piracy Legislation Must Not Curtail Innovation, Freedom of Expression
Sat, Jan 14 16:01 PM EST

UPDATED

In a potential problem for the movie industry, the White House has issued a warning about the anti-piracy legislation in Congress.

While agreeing that online piracy by foreign websites is a serious problem and requires a serious legislative response, it "will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet."

The response appeared Saturday morning on the White House blog. Citing the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), the Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA) and the Online Protection and Digital ENforcement Act (OPEN), it insisted any effort to combat online piracy "must guard against the risk of online censorship of lawful activity and must not inhibit innovation by our dynamic businesses large and small."

Also read: House Committee Delays Vote on Controversial Anti-Piracy Act

Any new legislation "must be narrowly targeted only at sites beyond the reach of current U.S. law, cover activity clearly prohibited under existing U.S. laws and be effectively tailored, with strong due process and focused on criminal activity," it said.

Provisions covering online intermediaries such as advertising networks, payment processors or search engines "must be transparent and designed to prevent overly broad private rights of action that could encourage unjustified litigation that could discourage startup businesses and innovative firms from growing."

It added that online piracy is a problem that hurts the American economy and is not just a matter for legislation. "We expect and encourage all private parties, including both content creators and Internet platform providers working together, to adopt voluntary measures and best practices to reduce online piracy."

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee was scheduled to hold a hearing Wednesday on SOPA; however, Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) on Friday night announced that it has been postponed following assurances that anti-piracy legislation will not move to the House floor this Congress without a consensus.

The hearing was to examine the impact of Domain Name Service (DNS) and search engine blocking on the internet. However, Friday night House Judicial Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) announced that he will remove the DNS blocking provision from his legislation.

"Although SOPA, despite the removal of this provision, is still a fundamentally flawed bill, I have decided that postponing the scheduled hearing on DNS blocking with technical experts is the best course of action at this time," Issa said.

"I am confident that flawed legislation will not be taken up by this House," Issa said in a statement. "Majority Leader (Eric) Cantor has assured me that we will continue to work to address outstanding concerns and work to build consensus prior to any anti-piracy legislation coming before the House for a vote."

In December, Issa released his own alternate version of SOPA. His version was toned down in an attempt to attract the tech community, but still inflamed Hollywood for not going far enough.

The White House statement was in response to several petitions (here and here) asking the administration to veto any anti-piracy legislation. It was crafted by Victoria Espinel, Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator at Office of Management and Budget, Aneesh Chopra, U.S. Chief Technology Officer, and Howard Schmidt, Special Assistant to the President and Cybersecurity Coordinator for National Security Staff.

"Moving forward," it said, "we will continue to work with Congress on a bipartisan basis on legislation that provides new tools needed in the global fight against piracy and counterfeiting, while vigorously defending an open Internet based on the values of free expression, privacy, security and innovation."

(Update: In light of the White House's position, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce later on Saturday called for immediate action on rogue-site legislation.

("Every day, consumers are duped, jobs are stolen, and businesses are crippled due to foreign rogue websites," the Chamber said in a statement. "That is why the Chamber strongly supports both the PROTECT IP Act in the Senate and the Stop Online Piracy Act in the House — both are narrowly tailored bills designed to target the worst of the worst offenders. Given the broad consensus that this issue needs to be addressed, it is time to come together and adopt strong legislation that ends the ability of foreign criminals to prey on innocent consumers and steal American jobs.")

Fiercely supported by Hollywood, the legislation has been fiercely opposed by a coalition of high-tech companies such as Google, Yahoo, PayPal, Twitter and eBay, who have charged that the effort to crack down on illegal downloads are too far-reaching and akin to censorship.
Related Articles: House Committee Delays Vote on Controversial Anti-Piracy Act Online Piracy Act Dead? Nancy Pelosi, Darrell Issa Both Come Out Against (Updated) Wyden, Issa Release Alternate Anti-Piracy Bill, But Hollywood's Not Biting

More Good News Guys. Sopa plans set to be shelved as Obama comes out against piracy legislation

Congress ready to drop Sopa vote after White House says it would not support legislation that threatens openness of internet

reddit this
Comments (16)

Dominic Rushe
guardian.co.uk, Monday 16 January 2012 12.11 EST
Article history

Sopa and e-Parasite
Sopa and e-Parasite aim to tackle online piracy by preventing Google and Yahoo from directing users to sites distributing stolen material. Photograph: Lucy Nicholson/Reuters

Congressional leaders are preparing to shelve controversial legislation aimed at tackling online piracy after president Barack Obama said he would not support it.

California congressman Darrell Issa, an opponent of Sopa, the Stop Online Piracy Act, said he had been told by House majority leader Eric Cantor that there would be no vote "unless there is consensus on the bill."

"The voice of the internet community has been heard. Much more education for members of Congress about the workings of the internet is essential if anti-piracy legislation is to be workable and achieve broad appeal," said Issa.

The news is a major blow for Sopa's backers in Hollywood, who had enjoyed broad support in Congress. But the Motion Pictures Association of America, one of the bill's biggest sponsors, said it would continue to press for new laws. "The failure to pass meaningful legislation will result in overseas websites continuing to be a safe haven for criminals stealing and profiting from America," the MPAA said in a blogpost.

The tech community has fought hard to stop Sopa and a rival bill, Protect IP, also known as the Enforcing and Protecting American Rights Against Sites Intent on Theft and Exploitation Act, or the e-Parasite act. Websites including Reddit and Wikipedia are planning to "go dark" on Wednesday in protest against the legislation. Issa said he remained concerned about Protect IP, which will go before the Senate on 24 January.

But both bills now look severely damaged after the White House came out firmly against their biggest proposals at the weekend.

"Let us be clear – online piracy is a real problem that harms the American economy, threatens jobs for significant numbers of middle-class workers and hurts some of our nation's most creative and innovative companies and entrepreneurs," the White House said in its first official comment on Sopa and Protect IP.

However, the White House said it would not support legislation that "reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risks or undermines the dynamic, innovative global internet."

The two bills aim to tackle online piracy by preventing American search engines like Google and Yahoo from directing users to sites distributing stolen materials. The bills would also allow people and companies to sue if their copyright was being infringed.

The White House expressed concern about both these elements and about passing legislation that threatened the openness of the internet. In the online statement it said any new legislation must be "narrowly targeted".

"Any provision covering internet intermediaries such as online advertising networks, payment processors, or search engines must be transparent and designed to prevent overly broad private rights of action that could encourage unjustified litigation that could discourage startup businesses and innovative firms from growing," said the White House.

The Obama administration also came out firmly against any plans to target the Domain Name System (DNS), a foundation of internet security, in order to tackle sites accused of piracy. Any proposed legislation "must not tamper with the technical architecture of the internet," said the White House.

The move effectively scuppers Sopa for now, and puts pressure on legislators ahead of a Senate vote on the e-Parasite act.

This weekend Rupert Murdoch – whose News Corporation includes the Hollywood studio 20th Century Fox, took to Twitter to attack the Obama administration for its criticism of Sopa.

"So Obama has thrown in his lot with Silicon Valley paymasters who threaten all software creators with piracy. Plain thievery," Murdoch wrote in a series of tweets that accused Google of hosting pirated material and selling advertising against it. Google dismissed his claims as "nonsense".

Art Brodsky, director for Public Knowledge, a Washington-based public interest group that has campaigned against Sopa, said: "You can't view this bill in isolation; it's part of a continuum. They will try to muddle through with something."

But he said the White House statement was "very helpful" and it was clear that any legislation that tried to make wide-ranging changed to the internet would now face tougher opposition.

Here's who supported and opposed the bill. Who in Congress Supports SOPA and PIPA/PROTECT-IP? | SOPA Opera | ProPublica

Some have went from supporting to opposing it since monday tho!

Now, it doesn't matter who supports or is against the bill. The SOPA bill is dead in the past form. There will probably be some sort of re-introduction in a different form later. However, the US Government have now taken their failed efforts to a different level by using the Feds to shut down MU. This is only the beginning for filehosting sites. It doesn't look good!

Originally Posted by tonybologna

Now, it doesn't matter who supports or is against the bill. The SOPA bill is dead in the past form. There will probably be some sort of re-introduction in a different form later. However, the US Government have now taken their failed efforts to a different level by using the Feds to shut down MU. This is only the beginning for filehosting sites. It doesn't look good!

it still exists though. and PIPA is still going.
the worst thing is the lack of amendments voted into it.