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 451-480 of 495 total comments.

asasasas 11/18/2011 8:39am
in reply to CurtisNeeley Nov 18, 2011 7:26am

Censorship of US TV and Radio is also unconstitutional. The concept that this would balance our budget is laughable. Our budget is, in all honesty, completely fraudulent, balanced by a $2 trillion influx of drug money (thank you, drug addicts), and even if the budget was solved every year, until the end of time, it fails to address the serious debt restructure we need to endure on every level of government.

asasasas 11/18/2011 8:33am
in reply to CurtisNeeley Nov 08, 2011 10:40am

“Thinker-politicians like Jefferson, Adams and Madison were just as
familiar as we are with the metaphor that likens created work to
physical property, especially to a landed estate. But they thought of
that landed estate in a new way – as the basis of a republic. An
American’s land was his own – he owed allegiance to no sovereign – but
his ownership imposed on him an almost sacred moral requirement to
contribute to the public good. According to Hyde, this ethic of “civic
republicanism” was the ideological engine that drove the founders’
conception of intellectual property, and to his mind, it undercuts the
ethic of “commercial republicanism” that dominates our current
conception of it. Our right to property is not absolute; our possessions
are held in trust, as it were. Seen through the prism of early civic
Republicanism, Hyde asks, what might the creative self look like? Do we
imagine that self as “solitary and self-made”? Or as “collective, common
and interdependent”?

CurtisNeeley 11/18/2011 7:37am
in reply to lalbert Nov 16, 2011 11:07pm

Free and uncensored Internet is illegal and has been since “Gore” invented it. Free unregulated access to nude photos is ALL you anti-censorship folks think free speech is about.

CurtisNeeley 11/18/2011 7:26am
in reply to RegisFrey Nov 16, 2011 8:35pm

Thank you for reading the brief. Filtration is a hoax used to keep pornography flowing freely on the Internet wires. That is all filtration has ever been.
censorship is NOT misguided as all US TV and radio is censored. Google Inc actually faught me in court for the last three years.
USC 47 § 232 (proposed) would completely solve the illegal free porn-Internet and balance the budget.

Spam Comment

papatulle 11/17/2011 10:24pm

We need to get people out of office that even THINK this is ok, rid us of the few rule the majority attitude they have now..

walker7 11/17/2011 9:15pm

Everyone has been doing a great job so far, but SOPA and PIPA are still not dead. Please continue to show your opposition to these bills!

goofoofighter 11/17/2011 8:42pm
in reply to KingGeedorah Oct 28, 2011 7:08am

The bill was heard in Congress yesterday. Discussion, amendment, and voting are still to come.

ATTENTIVECITIZEN 11/17/2011 8:28pm

lets make this simple.
1. it abridges freedoms including exspression and speech
2.its a pointles sbill that benifits the country and its real issues in no way shape or form

mattk2811 11/17/2011 6:10pm
in reply to KingGeedorah Oct 28, 2011 7:08am

I believe the vote was the yesterday.

patrickrhodesmartin 11/17/2011 5:50pm
in reply to ZeltraxMillenium Nov 17, 2011 1:00pm

That was just the protest date the bill has been moved to another committee. It has not been voted on yet

patrickrhodesmartin 11/17/2011 5:48pm

I will seriously consider suing the government if this passes.

underlordgc 11/17/2011 4:23pm
in reply to starwood Oct 28, 2011 9:24am
“I don’t understand what the fuss is about being able to download songs for personal use you can get cd’s at the library for free are they going to go after them too?”

according to this bill, if the holder of the copyright wants it removed then yes, it will be removed.

AWPhilly 11/17/2011 2:18pm

Copyrights are important, but the mechanisms in this bill, the potential for abuse by right’s holders, and the self-censorship and prior-censorship that would occur will destroy the internet as we know it. It will become less social, less inter-connected, less stable. This bill truly scares me.

ZeltraxMillenium 11/17/2011 1:00pm

Well, it’s the 17th and sites like YouTube, Twitter, FaceBook, and DeviantArt haven’t gotten blocked yet so, can anyone find out more info about this thing?

I am really AGAINST this bill as it would pretty much CRIPPLE the internet as we know it.

pmoore 11/17/2011 9:10am
in reply to Kickerman28 Nov 16, 2011 3:00pm

Furthermore, I don’t see any problem with spanking the brats who try to take other people’s work and pass them off as their own, but this is just ridiculous. It’s going to punish more than just the thieves. It will punish the mothers who send home videos to their soldier son overseas with copyrighted materials (properly attributed, mind you) used as the soundtrack (perhaps their son’s favorite song). It will punish documentarians who have no way to block out audio used in PA systems and are thus forced to “infringe on your copyright” with proper attribution in order to make their own free expression possible. Even worse, there is no warning system. If you “get caught infringing copyright”, BOOM, that’s it; you’re a felon.

I hear you, man, but this is not a bill to win back the “poor artist’s” intellectual property. This is an attempt by the business-oriented producers to ensure that their content is under draconian lock and key.

Chunmeista 11/17/2011 3:44am

As shown, Google opposes this bill. Enough said there.

I can imagine the Internet as a nation in itself. Its citizenship includes millions, even billions of people from countries across the world. On the internet, people decide what is right and wrong, be it voicing their opinions, or even liking or disliking a comment. It’s simple and true democracy, at its finest. As such, the Internet has an efficient form of self government, where everyone can vote.

If any nation attempts to censor the internet, I’d say it’s comparable to an act of aggression on another country.

The Internet is the one true “land of the free and home of the brave,” where the citizens of the world can freely express their ideas and opinions. Let’s keep it that way!

saber 11/17/2011 2:55am

235 years of fighting for freedom slowly going down the drain. It sure would be nice for our elected would represent the people instead of special interest. There is no doubt that this bill was introduced strictly for the monetary gain that will be received by our representatives and no consideration for freedom from censorship.

RadioActive 11/17/2011 2:49am

Its amazing how money can influence anything, even if its so very and utterly wrong.
If this passes, I’m crossing state lines and going to Canada. No way will I be put in jail just for karaoke-ing a song on Youtube. This is such a joke.

Hinojosa 11/17/2011 1:51am
in reply to lorrodriguez Nov 16, 2011 10:39am

cannot tell if troll…. The bill allows the fed to send out letters requiring companies to black list sites. There is no way for the government to do that remotely. ‘Hacking’ is not an issue here…

zankulong 11/17/2011 12:32am
in reply to Kickerman28 Nov 16, 2011 3:00pm

think of it this way you paint something that has a relavance to something else. a.k.a a joke or something. you are now a felon.

zankulong 11/17/2011 12:27am

I say we should use are constitutional right to fight the government take these money grubbing people out of our government and remake our government to were you have to have a degree to in it and they have to swear a oath to up hold the constitution and if they break that oath they get the death penalty

pmoore 11/16/2011 11:38pm
in reply to Kickerman28 Nov 16, 2011 3:00pm

Blatant theft of people’s work is one thing, but this bill extends beyond that problem and threatens people who are in no way involved in that. Think of it this way: It’s as if every time you left a store, someone could point at you and shout “Hey, he just stole a candy bar!”, and suddenly you’d have security guards pouncing on you and a felony charge waiting just around the bend. SOPA won’t save your precious property, but it will make it possible for anyone who doesn’t like you to royally screw you over for something you haven’t done.

lalbert 11/16/2011 11:07pm
in reply to Kickerman28 Nov 16, 2011 3:00pm

“Creative vision” is not more important than the rights of an entire country to have a free and uncensored Internet. If this bill passes, it’s not going to be just artists that will have trouble making a living- it will be the entire IT sector, since it will stifle innovation and put the IT companies at risk for lawsuits, even if they’d done nothing wrong other than allow users to find sites that contain pirated content.

There are already countries that control what their citizens can access on the Internet, or whether or not they can access it at all. But hey, if you want to go live in North Korea, be my guest.

RegisFrey 11/16/2011 8:35pm
Link Reply
+ 10
in reply to CurtisNeeley Nov 08, 2011 10:40am

Reading that brief it sounds like NameMedia Inc acted poorly in response to your copyright assertion. A more involved FCC could penalize companies that disregard legitimate claims. However, extending that to cleaning up the internet moves into outright censorship which is misguided and a very slippery slope. If you are concerned you should seek better parental controls and filtering at the user level (school/personal firewalls, browser blocks, better google search filtration in safe mode) not censorship at the content level.

patrickrhodesmartin 11/16/2011 7:29pm

The Protest Site for this can be found at American Censorship Day

jonez734 11/16/2011 6:32pm
in reply to CurtisNeeley Nov 04, 2011 1:43pm

Recording from an FM station will be made much more difficult when the system is “upgraded” to digital and analog stations are “phased out”. It might be legal to record from the radio, but it will be darn near impossible to do so in the near future.

Kickerman28 11/16/2011 3:00pm

As an artist, I think the Internet has already gone way too far in trampling on the rights of artists and copyright-holders. There’s an entitlement mentality that thinks entertainment should be free, not realizing the enormous investment of time, effort, skills and resources that’s required to produce many of the works they enjoy. When it costs millions of dollars to produce a movie, and entire lifetimes of effort to generate the skill necessary to make it, people have the effrontery to think that it should be distributed to anyone and everyone online at absolutely no cost or recompense. It’s sad and abhorrent how people grossly undervalue creative works these days, and even sadder how little people realize they’re fatally damaging an artist’s capacity to make a living through their works. I can say with little hesitation that I support increased regulation on an Internet that fights against an artist’s or company’s ability to control their own copyright as they deem fit.

SynTec 11/16/2011 2:10pm

Can’t wait to add this to www.epicfail.com.

ashlelyliz 11/16/2011 1:34pm

The internet is far to powerful for a few to control. The government has enough power. If they take away our rights on the internet, what rights will they fight next?

Vote on This Bill

1% Users Support Bill

32 in favor / 3129 opposed

Send Your Rep a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments