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 31-60 of 495 total comments.

  • Comm_reply
    RegisFrey 11/16/2011 8:35pm
    Link Reply
    + 10

    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.

  • Comm_reply
    CurtisNeeley 11/18/2011 7:26am

    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.

  • Comm_reply
    asasasas 11/18/2011 8:39am

    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.

  • Comm_reply
    Geowil 01/11/2012 2:41am

    You know that proposed bill will never work. It talks about censoring what you do on your own devices, that you bought and paid for. It is an invasion of privacy and there would still be ways to get around it.

    Let this be a lesson to you:

    You can not censor the Internet entirely; there will always be new technologies designed to defeat any censorship system and there will always be hacker groups ready to destroy such systems once put into place.

    Porn will also never go away. What a person does on their computer is not anyone else’s business if they are not breaking the law. Free porn is not unlawful, so the whole argument is invalid.

    You think OWS is bad, you ain’t seen nothing yet if SOPA and PIPA go into law. Anonymous and other hacker collectives will be over everyone that supported each like flies on the arse of a dead horse.

  • Comm_reply
    asasasas 11/18/2011 8:33am

    “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”?

  • Comm_reply
    nabcor 01/19/2012 7:12pm

    Amen brother!

  • 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_

  • Comm_reply
    DanielALockhart 12/29/2011 12:45am

    You brought a great analogy into play here. There was another country with a political party called the National Socialist Party that burned books and tried to censor what the populace was seeing. If memory serves they also had a Department of Homeland Security as well. I believe they were called the Nazi’s, and we all know how that movement ended.

  • Comm_reply
    silverado99 01/14/2012 1:09pm

    “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”

    Wow….did you even READ any of the bill? This hyperbolic nonsense is why things get out of hand. This bill is saying that if you run, operate, or use a site that is solely dedicated to theft of intellectual property, you are more than likely going to go to jail or be fined pretty heavily.

  • Comm_reply
    silverado99 01/14/2012 1:09pm

    Sure. Burning books was a way to censor thought in order to continue promoting beliefs of the party in charge. Shutting down piracy websites is to keep bottom-feeders from stealing things/taking credit for things they did not pay for or invest in. Why is that so wrong?

    “a song/movie/media can be recreated by anyone with a tape recorder or computer”

    Sure…you can do that, but it is a violation of federal law already. All this bill is doing is providing enforcement. If people would stop being so lazy and buy things instead of resorting to theft, this bill would be unnecessary.

  • 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 11/09/2011 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

  • Comm_reply
    asasasas 11/18/2011 8:41am

    Aside from the obvious point that most of the internet traffic worldwide is sattelite coordinated, not to mention the plethora of wireless networks world-wide, and I see wireless communication occuring. Radio is also wireless.

  • 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?

  • 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.

  • Comm_reply
    stephenmac7 01/08/2012 1:35pm

    Over three million for one senator :P

  • 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!

  • Comm_reply
    stephenmac7 01/08/2012 1:36pm

    It seems that it’s a bit redundant to say that. Other comments say almost the same thing. A +1 should suffice :)

  • Comm_reply
    silverado99 01/14/2012 1:10pm

    Please, explain how protecting the intellectual property of another from theft is against anything you have read from our Founding Fathers.

  • 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!

  • Comm_reply
    Hinojosa 11/17/2011 1:51am

    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…

  • Comm_reply
    JungleGirl 11/25/2011 3:01pm

    “Hacking” may not be an issue…But, if the government itself is corrupt—this essentially provides them the opportunity to do as they will regardless of public opinion.

  • Comm_reply
    stephenmac7 01/08/2012 1:38pm

    Yes, it seems that “Democracy” isn’t happening here in America. Corporatocracy seems to be the best term.

  • 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?

  • Comm_reply
    stephenmac7 01/08/2012 1:40pm

    Although I don’t support the bill I’d like to point out that having the internet isn’t a right. It’s a convenience. Actually Pirating is also a convenience, if internet is a “Right” then being able to pirate something is a right

  • SynTec 11/16/2011 2:10pm

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

  • 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.

  • Comm_reply
    lalbert 11/16/2011 11:07pm

    “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.

  • Comm_reply
    CurtisNeeley 11/18/2011 7:37am

    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.

  • Comm_reply
    asasasas 11/18/2011 8:43am

    WE.DONT.CARE.ABOUT.YOUR.PORN. I can drive down the road and pick up an illegal hooker once a week for less than the cost of an internet subscription, why would I care about ‘unlawfully’ looking at the pictures you have taken?

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