Should PJ join in on the SOPA strike blackout?

capthowdy1027

So a few big names websites are doing a blackout this Wednesday as a protest against the Stop Online Piracy Act. Do you think pearljam.com should join in as well?

For those not familiar here is an article about Wikipedia going on strike:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/enterta ... ed-to.html

PJ Fan est. 1990

I don't know much about SOPA, but wouldn't the name imply that it stops online piracy?

being that this is a band that sells music, I see PJ agreeing with this one....just grow up buy your damn music like we all used to have to do. It's not gonna kill you to drop 10-20 bucks on iTunes.

FrankieG

I disagree with SOPA. The blackouts have to do with awareness the bill and opposing the bill.

I think pearljam.com should be blacked out for both reasons, but won't get the impact that bigger sites like google, wikipedia, or facebook would receive.

PJ Fan est. 1990 wrote:

I don't know much about SOPA, but wouldn't the name imply that it stops online piracy?

being that this is a band that sells music, I see PJ agreeing with this one....just grow up buy your damn music like we all used to have to do. It's not gonna kill you to drop 10-20 bucks on iTunes.

First, I don't mean to attack you, but you don't really understand the bill if this is your main reason.

The bill has more to do copyright infringement and less to do about downloading music. While I agree that copyright infringement should be more closely watched, this bill is not the answer. The bill threatens to shut down the internet, plain and simple. I urge everyone to research this bill more and learn about it to make your own decision.

Finally, I disagree that the House should be able to attempt to do this. Im not sure about the numbers but somewhere around 80% of the House admitted to not using the internet at all. WHy should these people be able to vote on this issue that doesn't affect them?

tldr: IMO if SOPA passes, the internet will eventually be shutdown

PS this should probably moved to AMT

javis el errante

FrankieG wrote:

The bill has more to do copyright infringement and less to do about downloading music. While I agree that copyright infringement should be more closely watched, this bill is not the answer. The bill threatens to shut down the internet, plain and simple.

Exactly, this bill is against freedom of speech, not about downloading contents ilegally, if this bill passes, our sources of information will be reduce down to zero, you won't be able to share content via social networks, so those who are getting married soon won't be able to share videos of their parties via YouTube, since they will be infringing copyright of the music, or you won't be able to obtain information from news site, neither Rolling Stone nor New York Times, nor you won't have access to contents or information via Google...


edit: check this video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoU-bAcd2Qw ignore the first 45 seconds, on the 46th seconds it begins to talk about the media...

Alive_and_Evolving

I'll just reiterate the sentiment of this whole anti piracy for the artist thing being just a front for this awful bill

thefixer9

They should because if this bill passes it will be a DISASTER!

but if they do I will have absolutley nothing to do that day... :roll:

PJ Fan est. 1990

FrankieG wrote:

I disagree with SOPA. The blackouts have to do with awareness the bill and opposing the bill.

I think pearljam.com should be blacked out for both reasons, but won't get the impact that bigger sites like google, wikipedia, or facebook would receive.

PJ Fan est. 1990 wrote:

I don't know much about SOPA, but wouldn't the name imply that it stops online piracy?

being that this is a band that sells music, I see PJ agreeing with this one....just grow up buy your damn music like we all used to have to do. It's not gonna kill you to drop 10-20 bucks on iTunes.

First, I don't mean to attack you, but you don't really understand the bill if this is your main reason.

The bill has more to do copyright infringement and less to do about downloading music. While I agree that copyright infringement should be more closely watched, this bill is not the answer. The bill threatens to shut down the internet, plain and simple. I urge everyone to research this bill more and learn about it to make your own decision.

Finally, I disagree that the House should be able to attempt to do this. Im not sure about the numbers but somewhere around 80% of the House admitted to not using the internet at all. WHy should these people be able to vote on this issue that doesn't affect them?

tldr: IMO if SOPA passes, the internet will eventually be shutdown

PS this should probably moved to AMT

Sorry I haven't been on the board lately. Just a few things...

First of all, you obviously didn't read my post correctly. I started out by saying I don't know much about the bill, however continuing to make a comment based on the NAME of the bill and not the contents inside. Secondly, I never gave a position on the bill, my statement about growing up and buying your music was directed at how if there had never been piracy to begin with, the bill wouldn't need to exist. You seemed to miss the entire reason for my post. It was to give my opinion on what I think PEARL JAM's part in this debate would be (though I can't speak for them) not what my own opinion is. And based on the name of the bill, a band that SELLS MUSIC would most likely not protest this bill. I NEVER gave my opinion on the bill AT ALL.

Dr. Delight

If that bill passes, the internet will immediately become 75% less fun.

DewieCox

PJ Fan est. 1990 wrote:

First of all, you obviously didn't read my post correctly. I started out by saying I don't know much about the bill, however continuing to make a comment based on the NAME of the bill and not the contents inside. Secondly, I never gave a position on the bill, my statement about growing up and buying your music was directed at how if there had never been piracy to begin with, the bill wouldn't need to exist. You seemed to miss the entire reason for my post. It was to give my opinion on what I think PEARL JAM's part in this debate would be (though I can't speak for them) not what my own opinion is. And based on the name of the bill, a band that SELLS MUSIC would most likely not protest this bill. I NEVER gave my opinion on the bill AT ALL.

I'd like to think that PJ could put whatever anti-piracy stance they have aside in this instance and look at the bigger picture.

Alotta the stuff I've seen on the news is focusing on the pirating of music and movies, but what they don't tell you is that music sales are almost constantly on the rise.

Like others have said it's gonna basically shut down and and all sites that most people like to visit and put a real crimp the way people can communicate ideas.

IgotshitID

Dr. Delight wrote:

If that bill passes, the internet will immediately become 75% less fun.

Not too mention the porn we will loose :shock:

Spags

Yes they should. Everybody needs to be aware of this bill and how much damage it could do to our internet...rights are hard to get back once you've let them be taken from you.

DewieCox

Looks like SOPA has been withdrawn, for now.

cincybearcat

FrankieG wrote:

WHy should these people be able to vote on this issue that doesn't affect them?

Ummm, because we are a republic and they are the elected officials...it's kinda their job isn't it?

Although, I would prefer they worry about some other issues right now and tackle this one at a later date.

satansbed

i really need to brush up on my knowledge of SOPA while it is understandable that they should look at curbing internet piracy it would seem from reading other peoples opinions (dangerous but i just haven't had time to read it or about it properly yet) that this goes much further and threatens the internet as a whole, why else would big companys such as google et al be against it.

drinkbigredinstead

Alive_and_Evolving wrote:

I'll just reiterate the sentiment of this whole anti piracy for the artist thing being just a front for this awful bill

PJ Fan est. 1990

So i've done a little bit of research on the issue, but all i hear is

"THIS WILL BE AN ATTACK ON FREEDOM OF SPEECH!"

what everyone fails to do is pointing out what it is that will cause this infringement on free speech. what in the bill inhibits that?

EDIT: again, this isn't my trying to argue anything. I'm just trying to understand the bill so I can make a decision.

satansbed

really intersestin article on sopa

Lobbying
Washington SOPA Opera: Lobbying Power Shifts from Hollywood to Silicon Valley
By Michael Crowley | @CrowleyTIME | January 20, 2012 | 147
inShare20

Hollywood loves a good yarn about pirates on the high seas. Piracy online? Not so much. Every day, people around the world effectively steal countless movies, songs and other copyrighted content through websites offering illegal downloads. The big movie and music studios have fought this thievery for years, with some success. They hounded Napster out of business. Their high-profile (if unpopular) lawsuits against music downloaders–remorselessly targeting people of all age groups–produced a clear deterrent effect. Major websites like YouTube are quick to take down copyrighted content when asked. But the music and movie industries have struggled to combat overseas-based pirate sites that are mostly beyond the reach of U.S. law. So they have turned to Congress for help, and rallied support for two measures: the House’s Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), and the Protect IP Act (PIPA). Both would create new legal powers to give American companies–including TIME’s parent company, Time Warner, which supports this legislation–the ability to fight back against these foreign “rogue” sites.

(MORE: How Effective Were the Website Blackout SOPA Protests?)

The problem is that Silicon Valley hates Internet regulation. And its dot-com business leaders, including Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and Google chairman Eric Schmidt, particularly hate these bills. They liken provisions that would block links to pirate website from Google search results to the online censorship of Beijing and Tehran. They say a measure that would force advertisers to cut off their payments to pirate sites is open to abuse and misapplication, and could drive innocent web companies out of business. And they accuse Hollywood of exaggerating the economic harm it’s suffering. In the new print issue, I’ve done a fuller rundown of the arguments the two sides are making about the merits of passing SOPA, PIPA or some variation of the two, which all-access subscribers can read here.

What I didn’t have space to get into is the remarkable political and lobbying story behind this policy standoff. Just a few weeks ago, it looked as though Hollywood was going to get most of what it wanted without much fuss. But the dot-coms came back from the holidays with a vengeance, and have stopped the bills in their tracks for now. In part this is a story about the lobbying clout of a well-established industry meeting the new Washington power of an upstart, but extremely wealthy, rival. Google may only have opened a Washington lobbying office five years ago, but it is catching up fast to a game the Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Industry of America have been playing for decades. (Although it appears that the MPAA may be playing right now with one arm tied behind its back, thanks to lobbying rules that restrain its new chairman, former Senator Chris Dodd. See this amusing account for more.)

(MORE: Ten Prominent Sites That Went Dark Over SOPA and PIPA)

Silicon Valley also has a weapon that is perhaps even more powerful: the ability to shape public opinion in a hurry. Yesterday’s blackout by Wikipedia and related protests by countless other sites drove this issue into the consciousness of millions of Americans who have never picked up a copy of Roll Call in their lives, and wouldn’t otherwise have known or cared about the SOPA fight. Now it looks like a burst of public outrage–Google says that 4.5 million people signed an anti-SOPA petition yesterday–has members of Congress running scared. Whether the studios can regain the political momentum in this fight should reveal just how much, when it comes to the Washington influence game, the balance of power has shifted from Hollywood to Silicon Valley.

Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2012/01/20/wa ... z1k43xDEBm