Google has its name blacked out.

Well, correct me I'm wrong, but I'm not seeing anything bad about SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) and in fact see it as a good thing.

From Wikipedia linked below...
The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), also known as House Bill 3261 or H.R. 3261, is a bill that was introduced in the United States House of Representatives on October 26, 2011, by House Judiciary Committee Chair Representative Lamar S. Smith (R-TX) and a bipartisan group of 12 initial co-sponsors. The bill, if made law, would expand the ability of U.S. law enforcement and copyright holders to fight online trafficking in copyrighted intellectual property and counterfeit goods.[2] Presented to the House Judiciary Committee, it builds on the similar PRO-IP Act of 2008 and the corresponding Senate bill, the PROTECT IP Act.[3]

The originally proposed bill would allow the U.S. Department of Justice, as well as copyright holders, to seek court orders against websites accused of enabling or facilitating copyright infringement. Depending on who makes the request, the court order could include barring online advertising networks and payment facilitators from doing business with the allegedly infringing website, barring search engines from linking to such sites, and requiring Internet service providers to block access to such sites. The bill would make unauthorized streaming of copyrighted content a crime, with a maximum penalty of five years in prison for ten such infringements within six months. The bill also gives immunity to Internet services that voluntarily take action against websites dedicated to infringement, while making liable for damages any copyright holder who knowingly misrepresents that a website is dedicated to infringement.[4]

So really...in a nutshell, if you are a cyber thief, then you will be blocked...right? What am I missing? I'm guessing that maybe it would make it hard for search engines to uphold their end of the law or something?

Here is a link that might be useful: Wiki...there's more

hmmm...might that mean the Ebay would be forced to 'not allow' the sale of counterfeit goods?

Here is an interesting read...check out the links in the thread also....if you like. The ebay seller was selling a 'knock-off' Snuggie

Anyone that thinks politicians will do something to make the internet better please raise your hand. There is a reason these respected sites are protesting.

Agree with don_1. Politicians should leave their hands off the Internet.

Well I'm thinking it would give someone the right/power to shut down a lot of these hucksters on the net.

It used to be that people selling counterfeit goods locally, could be shut down locally. Now the world is the market for those wanting to sell their fake Rolexs, cheap Nike, whatever, etc. We've all seen the spam here where hucksters are 'pushing' their illegal wares.

I'm all for shutting down a lot of the illegal internet activity.

Here is a link that might be useful: google results for cheap Rolex

Here is a list of participants in the protest.

Here is a link that might be useful: list

MY opinion, for what it's worth, is the Govt. camel's nose is already way too far into the tent. I've had enough government "helping" me micromanage things. This bill will turn out to be nothing more/less than an avenue to censorship. And, who's going to be appointed Czar of this one?

"Just my opinion ...... I coud be wrong."

Sure just a handful that I recognize.

I found this at one of the sites that is shut down:
If either one passes, your favorite sites could disappear forever.

Another site says:
Over coming days you'll be hearing from the many businesses, advocacy organizations, and ordinary Americans who oppose this legislation because of the myriad ways in which it will stifle free speech and innovation.

Stifle free speech??? What?

I'm guessing those sites then are all for enabling or facilitating copyright infringement.
I'm guessing that they are trafficking in copyrighted intellectual property and counterfeit goods. Why else would they be fighting the Bill? I wonder if the vast majority of them have even read it, or if they are just playing 'follow the leader'.

What am I missing? One other site mentioned censorship? What???

I think the key word is "enabling". Let's say that I happen to have a site that peddles pirated merchandise. Through the normal course of indexing the Internet, Google's bots come upon my site. The current form of the law may Google responsible for determining the authenticity of the goods I'm selling or being penalized for having a link to my site.

Then there's the word "alleged". My site gets shut down, unlinked, whatever, because a lawyer at [pick the name of the company] alleges I've done something wrong. Now I have to spend how much to hire a lawyer and fight a multi-billion dollar company?

How about if I have a personal blog and link to another site? How many of us here have included links to other sites? What happens if one of those site, unbeknownst to us, happens to have stolen IP on them?

While I'm all in favor of protecting IP, what's being suggested is akin to making you responsible for what I do.

Here are the Top 5 Objections to SOPA, PIPA.

I found this report on last night's PBS Newshour informative.

While there is undoubtedly lots of objectionable material on the Internet, I have no desire for the government to limit what I can or cannot do. Just look at what has happened, and is happening, in China. Many people are using something akin to Twitter to voice their opinions about things. The government is about to put an end to that. Is this what we want? I want to be free to visit any sites I wish, post what I wish, download what I wish, without fear of "Big Brother" following every keystroke. And, while that may seem remote, it could very well be the final results down the road if government is involved.

Here is part of an e-mail I just received.

"The bill claims to protect against unlawful copyright infringement by shutting down sites that post copyrighted material. But its vague wording means that search engines could end up blocking access to entire websites for containing just the smallest portion of infringing content."

As usual big brother goes overboard.

I totally support the basic intent and I decry the Chicken Littles....."the sky is falling". This is not about censorship, it is about ownership. Sites like Google, YouTube, and Facebook want to just be able to make their money without any responsibility or any care, and all this at the sacrifice of those who created and/or own the pirated material.

In the unfinished product being considered there are steps before any action is taken. The entire charade is solely about money nothing else; both sides.

Until the bills come out in their final form for a final joint vote I reserve my opinion as to passage.

DA

I decry the Chicken Littles....."the sky is falling".
Remember back in 2006, I think it was, that GW came up with new Terms of Service. Yes, you would have thought the sky was falling and that GW was going to be publishing books with members pics in them, or worse yet, maybe selling prints of pics posted here on GW. Much to-do about nothing.

And whooda ever thought that our Gubbermint would outlaw my 100 watt light bulb? Perhaps next -- requiring a license to operate a wheel chair, but the fee (that's a tax, son) wouldn't be very much.

FJF,

I know that you are making light of the thread, but did you ever think about this?

People protest the Canadian pipline.
People protest off shore drilling.
People protest coal energy use.
People protest nuclear power.

I personally have thought about it, and I always ask what is the alternative?

Back in the 60's when they announced the planned reduction and elimination of leaded gas people complained as though the world would come to an end. Well, I just looked out the window of my office, and guess what? We are still here.

Do I believe the CFLs and LEDs are the panacea to electrical usage based on lighting? Nope. There just the alternatives we have now, and I keep my fingers crossed for something better. I just don't want governemnt involved. Read here.....Solyndra.

And so you know in my home I am 1/2 CFL and 1/2 incandecent.
DA

And I cannot read using the CFLs. They just are not bright enough for my old eyes. The ones that are supposed to be the "equivalent" of 100W incandescent are not at all.

Bobbie,

I wonder if that might be a result of brand or style. I do know they come in "soft white" as I am looking at a Sylvania $5.00 coupon right now.

I have Sylvania three-ways in two of my living room table lamps, and they are fine. I also have four 60W equivalent "mini"in the ceiling fan of the dining room. They too are fine.

DA

It was my understanding that in the last month sometime America along with our Canadian government had rescinded the order banning incandescent light bulbs. This due to the concern over disposal of the newer and seemingly dangerous bulbs. LED lights appear to be leading the charge now.

The ones that are supposed to be the "equivalent" of 100W incandescent are not at all.
I feel the same way.

And I cannot read using the CFLs. They just are not bright enough for my old eyes.
I know and it is no fun. To me it is comparable to trying to read something without my reading glasses.

It was my understanding that in the last month sometime America along with our Canadian government had rescinded the order banning incandescent light bulbs. This due to the concern over disposal of the newer and seemingly dangerous bulbs.
I was thinking that too, but don't know of a reliable source for the info.
OK...Found the info ...see link below.

This due to the concern over disposal of the newer and seemingly dangerous bulbs.
Well I sure have to agree with them there. Just like batteries of all types. Just how many households do you 'think' religiously (as in always) see that used batteries are disposed of properly?

Here is a link that might be useful: Congress Spares Incandescent Bulbs

Not taking sides or promoting as I concur there may be some potential concerns as to disposal of a CFL. I always keep in mind an old style mercury thermometer had 125 times the mercury of CFLs. Plus some of us, hand raised here, use to take a finger and play with mercury when a thermometer broke. I still have all my fingers and I didn't grow a second head.

I have been wondering too if some of the resistance is based on the initial cost of purchase. When a homeowner can go to the dollar store and get four incandescents for a dollar versus the outlay for CFLs and LEDs there has to be some eye opening and questions. I also keep in mind some people just can't live with change of any type.

The world didn't end when the nation went from analog television to HD.

I have had two CFL's fail; one flickered and one just stopped working. Like many of my others, they were warranted for nine years. Each time I e-mailed Sylvania and provided them with the requested date of purchase, location and the UPC number. The first time they sent me a $5.00 voucher/coupon and the second a $10.00 voucher/coupon both good for any Sylvania product. No muss, no fuss, and each time I made some money.

I know someone out there wonders as to how I disposed of the two failures. Answer: I drive past the recycling center every day going to work.

DA

Just an aside that makes me smile: seems the incandescent bulb issue was one of the "tea party's" pets. I'm quite a distance over on the road from the tea party. LOL!