DetroitYES will go dark Jan. 18 in protest against SOPA / PIPA

**lpg** · January-18-12, 02:39 PM

I wonder why John Conyers is supporting it.....

**antongast** · January-18-12, 02:42 PM

Originally Posted by lpg

I wonder why John Conyers is supporting it.....

Because he is extremely old, and like a lot of extremely old people, he's confused by this new-fangled Internet thingy that all the kids are using these days. Actually, I think the main reason this bill gained so much traction in Congress in the first place is that Congress is disproportionately made up of old people who don't understand technology very well.

**antongast** · January-18-12, 02:58 PM

Here's Matt Yglesias arguing that some level of copyright infringement is socially beneficial.

**douglasm** · January-18-12, 03:14 PM

I write a little music blog read by maybe a dozen people a week [[unless I'm railing on about the Rock and Roll Hall Of Fame) that's associated with our local paper. As I understand it, if I were to post something like this....

on to my blog with out obtaining permission of the copywrite holder, IN THEORY, the copywrite holder could have the entire website shut down. Also in theory the band and/or the label could request the same thing. The laws as proposed are a real mess.

**old guy** · January-18-12, 03:20 PM

Originally Posted by 1953

I don't see what the big deal is about this bill. So the government is trying to enforce copyright laws in the place where they are widely and openly violated?

Basically the devil's in the details.

A for instance: If I were to post on this thread and insert some copyrighted material within my post like some partial dialogue from a copyrighted book or AP story or a photo with a copyright, the government could in theory shut down the entire site. Lowell would probably have to hire a staff to peruse every post for any copyright infringements. That would be nearly impossible.

Sites like youtube and flickr would most likely be shut down as would wikipedia.

It's also unlikely that if this passes, that it would ever be repealed to change back to the internet we now know. Maybe it would be repealed but once they get their foot in the door it will never be the same.

It's very similar to freedom of the press.

**maxx** · January-18-12, 04:11 PM

Originally Posted by coracle

I'm sure that being Democrats they'll be both FOR and AGAINST the policy depending on who's asking the question; and if it goes to a vote they will vote they way they are instructed.

Unlike the Reps. who only vote their consciences. Har de har. I knew I couldn't type that with a straight face.

**Roq** · January-18-12, 04:46 PM

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

To a great degree, this is the RIAA [[record industry) trying to put a genie back into a bottle, instead of innovating. Until recently, there were no good ways to even purchase music online. Did the RIAA create it? No. They stonewalled, sued mothers, and bribed legislators. It took Apple to realize that people WANT TO PAY for music, if given a reasonable way to do so.

This battle has little to do with copyright, and lots to do with control and loss of revenues by some dinosaurs.

End of rant.

Semper fi, detroityes.com

Well said and I would add the MPAA to the mix. I have a real problem with corporate sponsored legislation and that is what this is. I have no problem imagining the worst with these money grubbing fools in charge of it.

Don't let your guard down either, they love to try and push bills like this through when they think no one is looking.

**Tig3rzhark** · January-18-12, 10:28 PM

Originally Posted by lpg

I wonder why John Conyers is supporting it.....

John Conyers is supporting the bill because he received a lot of money from the RIAA, MPAA and and cable and satellite companies.

**JBMcB** · January-18-12, 11:28 PM

You can tell by reading the text of the bill that it was written by people who don't really understand how the internet works. Look at the definitions section, for cryin' out loud:

- [[13) INTERNET PROTOCOL- The term `Internet Protocol' means a protocol used for communicating data across a packet-switched internetwork using the Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol, and includes any predecessor or successor protocol to such protocol.

The above paragraph is utterly meaningless. This definition would have got me an F in my network architecture class.

**thnk2mch** · January-19-12, 10:29 AM

██ ██████████ ██████ ██ ████ ██████████ ██.

This comment has been found in violation of H.R. 3261, S.O.P.A and has been removed

**lpg** · January-19-12, 11:58 AM

Sorry, I forgot John Conyers is just getting comfortable using a stone tablet.

**Lowell** · January-19-12, 02:32 PM

Did anyone notice if any other Detroit sites went 'dark'? Just curious...

**Jimaz** · January-19-12, 05:12 PM

Originally Posted by Lowell

Did anyone notice if any other Detroit sites went 'dark'? Just curious...

I'm not sure about Detroit sites but I was surprised how many Google's results sites [[not just Google itself) "went dark." It was as if Google's rankings were used to select which sites to coordinate. Pretty shrewd but not surprising.

USA Today: SOPA protest gets intended effect

Ravine · January-21-12, 01:59 AM

What a magnanimous gesture.
Not only does USA Today entirely ignore the state of Michigan by refusing to deliver to anywhere within her soggy borders, but even their web-site is blocked from our fiber-optic view, so the gracious link to their hard-hitting, elegantly polished journalism is a splendorous treat.