H.R.3261 - Stop Online Piracy Act

To promote prosperity, creativity, entrepreneurship, and innovation by combating the theft of U.S. property, and for other purposes. view all titles (7)

All Bill Titles

  • Popular: SOPA as .
  • Popular: Stop Online Piracy Act as introduced.
  • Short: Stop Online Piracy Act as introduced.
  • Official: To promote prosperity, creativity, entrepreneurship, and innovation by combating the theft of U.S. property, and for other purposes. as introduced.
  • Popular: Enforcing and Protecting American Rights Against Sites Intent on Theft and Exploitation Act as introduced.
  • Popular: E-PARASITE Act as introduced.
  • Popular: SOPA.

This Bill currently has no wiki content. If you would like to create a wiki entry for this bill, please Login, and then select the wiki tab to create it.

Comments Feed

Displaying 121-150 of 495 total comments.

  • WasMiddleClass 11/28/2011 12:10am

    And just to comment on your “The Internet wire communications will finally be safe for children” comment Curtis:

    http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2011/october/websites_101111

    Though it has absolutely nothing to do with this bill…

  • Comm_reply
    CurtisNeeley 11/28/2011 2:54pm

    Thanks to the info. Child pornography is not what I was referring to. Adult pornography production and consumption like with Teri Weigel was the copy+right portion I am referring to.

    The Internet will be as censored as television and radio are censored when shown to anonymous people before I cease my lawsuit against GOOG, MSFT, and the FCC.

    Copy+rights will be a personal “right” in the United States just as the right recognized in the rest of the Berne Convention Countries of the world.

    All visual artist should have the right to control where their visual art is displayed to minors WITHOUT relying on filtration! Anything pertaining to a foreign website applies domestically.- BTW

    PDF Appellant Brief (56 pages)

  • Comm_reply
    WasMiddleClass 11/28/2011 10:44pm

    So you are a big supporter of censorship by the government apparently.

    “Anything pertaining to a foreign website applies domestically.- BTW”

    Maybe we need a “great firewall” like China too?

  • Comm_reply
    WasMiddleClass 11/28/2011 11:57pm

    I have to ask about this one too:

    “All visual artist should have the right to control where their visual art is displayed to minors WITHOUT relying on filtration!”

    What about all those cable channels?

  • Comm_reply
    CurtisNeeley 11/29/2011 12:57am

    BERNE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF LITERARY AND ARTISTIC WORKS

    The United States has signed this treaty including Article6bis.

    “…(1) Independently of the author’s economic rights, and even after the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the said work, which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation…”

    Simple explanation approved by Congress making US copyrite law unconstitutional for violating the Fifth Amendment and the intentions of the Ninth Amendment. Unconstitutional besides being vague and unenforceable since 1976 when over-broad/vague fair-use exceptions were established.

    US Courts will decide by 2012.
    Cable Channels?

  • Comm_reply
    WasMiddleClass 11/30/2011 10:37pm

    Cable channels….

    Who decides what minors view adult material on cable? The government?

  • Comm_reply
    CurtisNeeley 12/01/2011 12:47am

    Thanks, I see the similarity. Adult material is NOT available on publicly accessible cable unless the cable has Internet wire communications. Adult material is generally subscription and the TV with adult material access by cable is assumed to be monitored by an adult.

    Leaving adult material available and accessible on television via cable where a minor may view it is contributing to the delinquency of minors in most US jurisdictions.

    The FCC regulates most cable television communications as you can note from the fines that CBS was given for Ms Jackson’s 2004 Superbowl wardrobe malfunction .

    CENSOR the INTERNET!

  • Comm_reply
    AllanTreen 12/01/2011 4:03pm

    The Internet is one of the last places for people to freely speak their mind without any recourse or persecution. Controlling the free exchange of idea’s and opinions will only slow man kinds ability to perceive the ever changing world around them. For those who support this bill i will remind you that because of the internet, and the way it works. Humanity has never been closer then it is right now……

  • Comm_reply
    CurtisNeeley 12/01/2011 10:01pm

    Humanity has never been able to disclose information regardless of the effect it has on others. Anonymous international communication that is offensive is illegal already but the FCC has not regulated wire communications by calling them instead some mysterious new medium. I agree that it is generally good, but there MUST be regulation as required by law already.
    Censor the UnReguLated Internet wires

    Game over in a month or two…
    Appellant Brief

  • Comm_reply
    WasMiddleClass 12/01/2011 10:18pm

    I see rape, murder, and every other imaginable crime on plain old network TV every day. I can but a video game in Toys R’ Us and chop peoples heads off all day…

    So what needs to be censored on the internet?

    If it is copyright infringements why is it that the government is already shutting down any site they want to for that at will now?

    I say it is the peoples voice they want to censor.

  • Comm_reply
    AllanTreen 12/01/2011 10:29pm

    Regulation is a terrible idea. It should not be the governments job to decide whats offensive, Not to mention Unconstitutional. The damage that could be done by censorship of social media would be catastrophic. Even if they censor the US you cant censor the rest of the world.

  • Comm_reply
    CurtisNeeley 12/03/2011 12:21pm

    @AllenTreen…
    It is NOT unconstitutional to regulate the Internet anymore than it is to censor daytime television shows or the Superbowl halftime. An industry-wide five second delay of all live performances ALLOWS CENSORING. It is EXACTLY the government’s job to censor according to the Communications Act.

    The laws requiring “censorship of the Internet” are not hidden or unconstitutional.
    See USC 47 §§ 151,152, 230, 231.

    The public will see the Internet is nothing but a high-powered telegraph wire that the FCC fails to regulate due to a confused, seventy-seven-year-old Supreme Court Justice who called the Internet a mysterious, unique and wholly new medium in ridiculous error.
    ACLU v. Reno, United States Supreme Court No. (96-511) (June 1997)
    Computer wire communications were neat when unregulated?

  • Comm_reply
    AllanTreen 12/05/2011 1:32am

    Considering the internet is world wide, One government should not have the power to censor what it feels as its share of domain names. I mean Honestly man do you really want to live in a world where you post a video that includes a popular song in the backround. It gets a couple thousand hits and all the sudden your being sued by a multi million company? I fail to see your side of the argument and how we will all benefit by this act.

  • Comm_reply
    CurtisNeeley 12/05/2011 10:40pm

    I have heard this outrageous claim and it is ludicrous. The video of the dancing baby should have faced the complainant in court or ignored them. Once in the United States people would stand up for what they felt was right and not just back away and become the wire venue’s viral complaint.
    Sounds like that is EXACTLY WHAT IS HAPPENING!

    I am sick of the whining about the dancing baby. ANYONE ELSE?

    The case involved idiotic claims by Universal Music and these claims will steer clients away from Universal Music. Oops Well; Appears they are too big to fail just like Chevy et al?

    HOW ABOUT A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT THAT STRIPS CORPORATIONS OF PERSONHOOD?

    COPYRITES should be limited to the artist’s life and 50 years.

    APPELLANT’S BRIEF

  • Comm_reply
    WasMiddleClass 12/01/2011 10:11pm

    So you are saying you do not have to subscribe (pay) for the internet in America?

    Are not children ALWAYS supposed to monitored by an adult?

  • z3ro 11/28/2011 5:07pm

    From what I’ve read, this will unfortunately seriously hurt the only sector in the U.S. economy that is experiencing major growth. I can only see more harm than good in this bill. 1984 much?

  • walker7 12/01/2011 10:26pm

    The following sites talk about a reasonable alternative to SOPA and PIPA:

    http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2011/12/technology-a-bipartisan-alternative-to-the-stop-online-piracy-act.html
    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111201/12165616945/alternative-to-pipasopa-proposed-points-out-that-this-is-international-trade-issue.shtml
    http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/196717-lawmakers-circulating-alternate-online-piracy-bill

    We are getting there. I really hope that both the too-dangerous SOPA and PIPA will be eliminated in favor of this new alternative.

  • Comm_reply
    CurtisNeeley 12/03/2011 2:34pm

    I have requested that Google Inc stop visiting my site and using my photography to sell shit. I asked the same thing from Microsoft Corporation.

    They are both ignoring this request.

    Go see.

  • Spam Comment

  • Comm_reply
    WasMiddleClass 12/04/2011 11:13pm

    What do you think you will actually accomplish by giving the government more power over the internet?

    Many of my friends sites have been publishing their actual IP for a while now just in case they are erased from DNS by .gov with no due process, like so many sites already have been .

    And there is a reason why many avoid Google as much as possible.

    Research what info Google gives government on request…

  • Spam Comment

  • Spam Comment

  • cabankelvin 12/06/2011 1:13pm

    This bill or proposed law is wrong.The internet will not be an entertaining vehicle if this bill is approved.Many companies try to project something and influence people in a way.This while they see their same material used by Internet users for entertaining purposes on the world wide web but with a different kind of educational focus or role.The owners of those companies forget that those people are citizens who in some cases have their own internet pages that they economically maintain and that those people are not looking to have any lucrative interest because of that property.If this is approved the freedom of speech by regular citizens will be affected as people will not be able to use photos,videos or any material owned by the big interest companies because of copyrights.Citizens will have to pay jail for that.It seems that there is a Government concern on how the internet continues to influence the people by using the same freedom of speech used in other communications vehicles.

  • Comm_reply
    CurtisNeeley 12/06/2011 6:02pm

    @cabankelvin
    “the freedom of speech by regular citizens will be affected as people will not be able to use photos,videos or any material owned by the big interest companies because of copyrights.”

    Use of photos,videos or any material owned by ANY other while violating personal rights of the creator of said photos,videos or material violates rights of the person and should NOT happen and this bill does not disturb legal free-speech in any way at all.

    Free-speech is NOT impacted the tiniest by not allowing copyrites to be violated as long as copyrites are protected by a person[NOT A CORP].

    Copyrites should be personal rights and corporations should not be allowed to have copyrites or be legally treated as a person.

    PDF of APPELLANT BRIEF (56 PAGES)

  • Comm_reply
    WasMiddleClass 12/07/2011 12:19pm

    I think the problem most people, including myself, have with these bills is that it gives the government even more power. It is obvious that they already have the power to shut down websites they deem offensive at will now seeing as how they have already shut down hundreds, without any due process mind you. We have witnessed what more government power under the guise of protecting people has gotten us. Take the Patriot Act for example. Out of all the billions of dollars spent to spy on US what was the result?

    http://www.aclu.org/national-security/surveillance-under-patriot-act
  • Comm_reply
    WasMiddleClass 12/07/2011 12:19pm

    And now we have a “secret interpretation” that no one outside of government can even read yet even with multiple lawsuits to disclose it. How the hell are we expected to abide by a “secret” law that is a secret!

    Does that secret law actually give the government the power to murder American citizens without due process? Apparently it does!

    I can not see how this law will help most Americans at all Mr. Neeley, and as for your claims that it will protect individuals copyrights, the government already has that power, if they choose to use it.

    It seems to me that your fight should be more about big money/corporations controlling our government for their own interests than giving the government even more power that will inevitably used to protect big money in this new age of discontent against government, and their elite masters.

  • pavementends42 12/07/2011 2:37pm

    This is an anti-competition law and shouldn’t pass committee, let alone come to a vote. It discourages new businesses, despite claims, and tries to solidify existing businesses as the only sources for licensed content. This law favors big entertainment so they no longer have to change their business models to suit the market; instead this law tries to shape the market to suit these entertainment conglomerates. It is a subsidy for the entertainment industry, at it’s highest, most ruthlessly capitalist levels. It is bad for the internet, users, web entrepreneurial upstarts and the artists themselves! That and there are ALREADY LAWS THAT PROTECT COPYRIGHTS!

  • Comm_reply
    CurtisNeeley 12/07/2011 4:58pm

    @pavementends42 Ummm – THERE ARE NO US LAWS THAT PROTECT COPY RIGHTS There are artists rights tenuously protected in USC 17 §106A. In the United States USC 17 or the Copy[rite] Act, enshrines the United States government sanctioned copying RITUAL. SOPA is NOT bad for artists although most content is owned by corporations. Please explain your rational for that claim. – if there is one?

    It is PRECISELY anti-competition in that keeps content thieves from competing with purchasers of the government sanctioned copy[rite] holders.

    I understand your claim and semi-agree with it. The government sanctioned copy[rite] is unconstitutional since 1790 and has fooled most United States citizens and judges into thinking the IP backwards United States recognized the personal right to exclusively control created art.

    @pavementends42 it appears you need to read the bill here then comment.

    @WasMiddleClass I have served the Attorney General and the Federal Communications Commission.

  • WasMiddleClass 12/07/2011 6:24pm

    Well…

    I have no interest in getting into the finer points of copyright law now.

    There are far bigger issues facing most of us now…

    I wish you the best on taking on the powers that be. I have done it several times myself.

    Many of us are more worried about our voices being silenced, to speak out about our jobs/money/rights/lives being stolen…

    Maybe copyrights is yours above…

    But no new law will help most now…and probably not you either.

    I must say some lawyer friends of mine find it “interesting”…

  • WasMiddleClass 12/07/2011 6:49pm

    I have been trying to come up with some fitting words for this anniversary of Peal Harbor.

    I can not come up with any better than these from a Pear Harbor survivor.

    “Freedom is never free, It looks like it never will be”


Vote on This Bill

1% Users Support Bill

32 in favor / 3128 opposed
 

Send Your Rep a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments