Da vergüenza ajena el adolescente tardío de las barbas. El día que posteéis un análisis de la ley hecho por alguien que tenga al menos la carrera de derecho lo leeré.
#2 #16 #31 vaya falacia ad-hominem os habéis marcado, a mí me daría vergüenza caer tan bajo.
"YouTube would just go dark immediately," Google public policy director Bob Boorstin said at a conference last month. "It couldn't function."
"The legislation systematically favors a copyright owner's intellectual property rights and strips the owners of accused websites of their rights."
"We support the bills' stated goals. Unfortunately, the bills as drafted would expose law-abiding U.S. Internet and technology companies to new uncertain liabilities [and] mandates that would require monitoring of web sites."
As originally written, SOPA would have required Internet service providers (ISPs) to block access to sites that law enforcement officials deemed pirate sites.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/17/technology/sopa_explained/index.htm
Although the bills are ostensibly aimed at reaching foreign websites dedicated to providing illegal content, their provisions would allow for removal of enormous amounts of non-infringing content including political and other speech from the Web.
SOPA would also allow rightsholders to force payment processors to cut off payments and advertising networks to cut ties with a site simply by sending a notice.
These bills are targeted at "rogue" websites that allow indiscriminate piracy, but use vague definitions that could include hosting websites such as Dropbox, MediaFire, and Rapidshare; sites that discuss piracy such as pirate-party.us, p2pnet, Torrent Freak, torproject.org, and ZeroPaid; as well as a broad range of sites for user-generated content, such as SoundCloud, Etsy, and Deviant Art. Had these bills been passed five or ten years ago, even YouTube might not exist today — in other words, the collateral damage from this legislation would be enormous.
These acts would allow the Attorney General, and even individuals, to create a blacklist to censor sites when no court has found that they have infringed copyright or any other law.
https://www.eff.org/issues/coica-internet-censorship-and-copyright-bill
WOULD IT FIX THE PROBLEM? Probably not, and even if it made some progress toward reining in rogue sites, the collateral damage would be significant.
Laurence H. Tribe, the noted First Amendment lawyer, said in an open letter on the Web that SOPA would “undermine the openness and free exchange of information at the heart of the Internet. And it would violate the First Amendment.”
Potential for abuse is rampant. As Public Knowledge points out, Google could easily take it upon itself to delist every viral video site on the internet with a "good faith belief" that they're hosting copyrighted material. Leaving YouTube as the only major video portal. Comcast (an ISP) owns NBC (a content provider). Think they might have an interest in shuttering some rival domains? Under SOPA, they can do it without even asking for permission.
SOPA also includes an "anti-circumvention" clause, which holds that telling people how to work around SOPA is nearly as bad as violating its main provisions. In other words: if your status update links to The Pirate Bay, Facebook would be legally obligated to remove it. Ditto tweets, YouTube videos, Tumblr or WordPress posts, or sites indexed by Google. And if Google, Twitter, Wordpress, Facebook, etc. let it stand? They face a government "enjoinment." They could and would be shut down.
The resources it would take to self-police are monumental for established companies, and unattainable for start-ups. SOPA would censor every online social outlet you have, and prevent new ones from emerging.
http://gizmodo.com/5877000/what-is-sopa
If that court order is granted, the entire website would be taken down. Internet users who typed in the site's URL address would receive an error message, and for all appearances, the site would never have existed. Importantly, the court does not need to hear a defense from the actual website before issuing its ruling. The entire website can be condemned without a trial or even a traditional court hearing.
Copyright holders can demand that payment processors to cutoff the flow of money to a website or that search engines eliminate links to it -- without ever entering a courtroom.
If they choose to simply follow orders from movie studios, both SOPA and Protect IP would give these companies legal immunity for cutting off any legitimate websites that were falsely accused of copyright infringement. Internet service providers and payment processors could not be sued for taking action against sites that were not, in fact, doing anything improper.
The legislation poses a significant risk to social media. If links to pirated movies were posted on Twitter or Facebook, the Justice Department could seek to shutdown the entire social media website, while Hollywood and other copyright owners could use their private right of action to severely limit the site's functionality.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/19/what-is-sopa_n_1216725.html
¿Son suficientemente "cool" para vosotros estas fuentes?
#34 Es lógico que te parezca ridículo cuando no te has leido las normas. Poner un texto en inglés no solventa nada.
esta claro que a media vida le conviene la sopa y deberíamos boicotearla. como si no hubiera en oftopic post mucho peores que este. y si #1 edita ahora con una breve explicación en videos se queda. huele mal. que hay webs que han estado luchando desde el principio y lo harán hasta el final por nuestra libertad y aquí han dejado poner links 2 meses y se han cagado en los pantalones por miedo a quedarse sin su chollo
aunque no llegara nunca como el derecho a portar armas casi todas las películas y series que veo provienen de estados unidos
¿podrían presionar a otros países para impedir que se compartieran? porque de ser asi tienen muchos motivos y de mucho peso para sacar esa ley adelante y si no seria ridículo que los demás podamos ver sus películas por la cara y ellos mismos no.
igual es una tontería pero es que no entiendo exactamente en que nos afectaría si sacaran esa ley y aquí no. y si solo se sacara en estados unidos no tendría sentido. se las bajarían de paginas de otros países ¿no?
