

The True Intent of SOPA - stupandaus
http://theagilepanda.com/2011/11/21/the-true-intent-of-sopa/

======
ajays
Personally, I think the true intent of SOPA is to prevent a Jasmine Revolution
happening in the US (or Europe), and to prevent sites like WikiLeaks from
spreading.

The US saw that Twitter and Facebook were key driving forces behind the events
in Egypt, Tunisia, Iran, Syria, Libya, etc. Today they have not much control
over these sites (other than politely requesting Twitter to delay a system
upgrade[1] because Iranians were using it to coordinate their activities).
Thanks to SOPA, they'll have a sledgehammer in their arsenal to knock these
sites around.

Similarly, they could just talk to Amazon to not host Wikileaks[2]; but if
Amazon had refused to comply, they couldn't have done much (OK, other than
maybe quickly imposing a federal sales tax). Now, thanks to SOPA, they can
completely shutdown AWS should the next Wikileaks crop up.

[1] [http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/06/16/us-iran-
election-t...](http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/06/16/us-iran-election-
twitter-usa-idUSWBT01137420090616)

[2] [http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/01/wikileaks-
websit...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/01/wikileaks-website-
cables-servers-amazon)

~~~
nextparadigms
That didn't work so well for Amazon, since they got the sales tax anyway. So
they ended up with both a bad reputation and a sales tax. I wish they would've
at least refused to take down Wikileaks. When in doubt, do the right thing.

~~~
azth
if you know how Amazon works internally you wouldn't be surprised of their
action. They're just another business with no concern about 'doing the right
thing' unfortunately.

------
dredmorbius
That's one take.

Another perspective that's occurred to me: this is a battle (in part) between
the old world of software distribution (sold, in physical units, proprietary),
vs. the new (SAAS, and to a small extent, free software distributed over the
Net).

In the case of SAAS vs. desktop/locally installed software, it's hardly
surprising that Google and Microsoft end up on opposite ends of this debate.
What helps one most certainly hurts the other. And to that extent, other
players in this game are probably pawns to an extent.

That said: SOPA is bad, bad, bad legislation and I'm very strongly opposed.

------
Zirro
I'm not directly affected by SOPA as I don't live in the US, but it certainly
is a concern of mine that if it were to pass, it can be used to motivate such
actions in other countries despite the recent negative statements on SOPA from
the EU Parliament. It's a "but look, even they are doing it"-thing.

In other words, here is yet another person hoping it doesn't pass, no matter
what the true intention is.

EDIT: I do realize, however, that sites used by me which are hosted in the US
can be brought down and affect me directly.

~~~
bad_user

         "but look, even they are doing it"-thing.
    

I'm pretty sure the US is copying China in this regard. Governments look up to
other governments with economic power.

Until a huge public outcry will happen, governments are going to do everything
they can to control the Internet in every way possible. To make matters worse,
these changes are implemented gradually and the negative effects such
legislation will have on the public will start being obvious 5 to 10 years
from now, when the inertia will be too great for anything to be done about it.
I mean, even the Patriot Act is still active, so what chances does something
like SOPA has to be retracted if passed? Especially since it is portrayed like
those damn pirates are stealing your jobs.

See the old _boiling frog anecdote_.

I'm gradually losing faith in humanity - these days it's as if for every step
forward, there are 2 steps backwards.

------
granitepail
My gut has been that it is backed (and would be exploited) by corporations,
specifically big media. Combine this with poor IP laws and you've got a
scenario in which corporate censorship can thrive.

------
Yhippa
OK so I finally read Wikipedia's take on the bill
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act>).

At this point that no matter what happens we're screwed. I see why the people
in industry want to back SOPA. As a copyright holder of something that costs a
lot of money to make of course you want to make sure someone's not getting it
for free.

I feel that laws like this could be way too broad and definitely hurt
companies that rely on general Internet content like the people making noise
against it (Google, Facebook, and Twitter for example). I couldn't imagine the
chilling effect this would have for those companies to come up with ways to
remove the offending content. This would eat into their profits and make their
products less useful.

On the other hand I don't know what the solution to this problem is. Should
the companies just accept that a certain amount of piracy is going to happen?
Should they charge less for content and make it more accessible? That may be a
feel-good thing to say but to create the high production values for your
favorite movie today costs money.

As to why I think we're screwed I imagine that if (when?) this bill doesn't
pass then the companies will enact even more draconian options to curb piracy
or copyright infringement.

------
maeon3
Woah, sopa is a future Wikileaks killer. Woah suddenly everything clicked in
my mind. Mpaa, riaa, internet copying and "saving the children" are just
pieces in a great chess game where Congress keeps itself the most powerful
entity on the planet... With a website off switch to be used on any website
worldwide that successfully challenges its authority. All bills giving any
central authority power over the worldwide internet must be stopped. Internet
> all governments... Combined. Internet should be free like a conversation in
your home is free.

