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 481-495 of 495 total comments.

lorrodriguez 11/16/2011 10:39am

If this bill does go through and goverment does have a control over a majority of websites….what if that power gets into the wrong hands? hackers or terrorist then they will have a control over everything that keeps us moving every day cyber war is real!…Please dont allow this to go through for the sake of our country!

lorrodriguez 11/16/2011 10:35am

do NOT allow this bill to pass it will cripple our nation as a whole, and destroy what our founding fathers have created for us…This is the land of the of the Free!! lets keep it that way!

Kaze 11/15/2011 8:55pm
Link Reply
+ 13

Well, well, well. Take a look at those monetary donations thrown at our senators and representatives by the interest groups that support this bill.

Samizdat 11/11/2011 4:27pm

The ironic thing is that I will wrangle (not to be confused with Rangel) opencongress.org in any way I can to help elect Ron Paul, whereupon we will proceed to put an end to forcing the public to pay for opencongress.org. This outcome would ideally be but a benefit of ending the income tax. Isn’t it fascinating how the Eastern Bloc repudiated Communism in the early 80s, yet the U.S. increasingly embraces Communism?

CurtisNeeley 11/09/2011 5:41pm

@allyReport101 You asked, “Can anyone explain the difference between burning books and taking down websites”, and I will try.

Burning books requires a source of heat and oxygen. Taking down a copy[]right violating website requires only an injunction.

Can anyone explain the difference between wire communications and the Internet? – No you cant because they are just one method to wire communicate.

Appeal Brief PDF

HubsterB 11/09/2011 12:20pm
Link Reply
+ 16

So much for freedom in America. Download anything everywhere but here in our great country? Sounds like these congressmen are getting paid by the American taxpayers and the media moguls. Where does it end? It doesn’t. Once the door has been opened, it only gets wider. If the American public had as many lobbiest on Capitol Hill as big business, “We the people” would mean just that.

CurtisNeeley 11/08/2011 10:40am
in reply to walker7 Nov 06, 2011 2:54am

Internet censorship has been required by law since 1934 but has not been done by a free pornography loving United States. The end of the pornternet is at hand. Appeal Brief

allyReport101 11/07/2011 4:44am
Link Reply
+ 38

Can anyone explain the difference between burning books and taking down websites>? Want a huge government have intellectual property law_ Something that is not scarce cannot be owned, a song/movie/media can be recreated by anyone with a tape recorder or computer, this does not mean you can take credit for creating a song you did not write, but what is shouldn’t mean is that the writer has a team of armed goons ready to stick guns in people’s faces demanding payment for singing their songs at karaoke_

walker7 11/06/2011 2:54am
Link Reply
+ 40

We will never be ready for Internet censorship. This bill is overly broad, and therefore it is too ridiculous. It is very important that you should oppose this bill and save the Internet!

molonlabe 11/05/2011 12:15pm

I could understand who someone could IP as far as exact copies of movies, music, movies and books go. But, when it comes to someone incorporating a part of another person’s IP in their own original work like remixes of songs or even something more mundane like a mother posting a video of their child dancing to a song on you tube civil or criminal penalties for those actions are simply indefensible. Patents on drugs or chemicals are completely ridiculous. Patenting a chemical compound is like patenting the color blue or the process of making a sandwich. Patents like that only hurt consumers. The only reason drug companies need patents to earn crazy profits is the oppressive over-regulation perpetrated by the FDA. If it wasn’t for the ridiculous drug regulations healthcare would be much cheaper too.

CurtisNeeley 11/04/2011 11:40pm
in reply to molonlabe Nov 04, 2011 7:39pm

The “natural rights” rational v “utilitarian rights” rational are mutually exclusive rationals for IP that is very obvious but apparently was over N. Stephan Kinsella’s logical abilities? This may have came from the incorrect claim on page fifteen.

“Only A has the right to copy the book (hence, ‘copyright’”

N. Stephan Kinsella therein reveals a fundamental logical error. There are no “natural rights” involved whatsoever in United States copy[]right or IP laws. The rite of printing a book was initially called a “right” when Queen Anne allowed one printer to control all printing unless another party was given permission to print. The first copyrite statute in about 1710 or Statute of Anne. I agree with the claim that a personal right can not last longer than a person lives.
Appellant Brief PDF

molonlabe 11/04/2011 7:39pm

Intellectual property (IP) was invented by staists in furtherance of crony capitalism. IP is really a ridiculous idea if you think about it. I highly recommend this book to those interested in reading more on the subject http://mises.org/books/against.pdf

CurtisNeeley 11/04/2011 1:43pm

This bill sounds regulatory but is another lawyer game and only protects those who purchase “copyrites” as required in ยง411

What a NOT funny f’ing joke.

Copyrite is a backwards American law that I have called unconstitutional in United States Courts for over three years. The appeal is pending to be dismissed in order to allow search engines to continue to traffic in my nude art to anonymous people who could be minors. I also demand the FCC to regulate wire communications as required by law since 1934.

Appellant Brief PDF

starwood 10/28/2011 9:24am
Link Reply
+ 21

I don’t know whats going on or what, but I’m hearing that the government is wanting to track our every move on the internet?! Isn’t that invasion of privacy? 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? we are able to record off the radio also are the going to take away our radio also? Where will it end? I think this bill is just wrong and unfair and I don’t see the point if we are using it for pursonal use only and not selling it.

KingGeedorah 10/28/2011 7:08am

This was a featured story on the front page. What happened?


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