AmGovt Journal ? 11/17/2011

I think legislation like this is completely uncalled for and irrelevant especially with all of the issues that need to be adressed at this point in time in America. I feel like this is one more exercise of power . There will ALWAYS be people doing illegal things on the internet and as far as technology has come they should be able to be tracked down and punished accordingly instead of making everyone else that uses the internet properly suffer . So all in all I think this legislation should be reviewed and revised with some deeper thought .

I do not agree with this at all. Everyone should not be punished because others decided to commit illegal acts. Who ever decided to do what ever they did should be the one punished. Maybe they should be contacted and not allowed to be on the internet or maybe what ever they did they should pay a fine for. But not everyone should "in trouble" because we didn't post it we simply clicked the link. They should think more about who they are targeting in this bill because why should we all be effected by someone else's mistake. (hmmm kinda like adam and eve right? * fake smile* )

I believe that its messed up how one person does something illegal and the whole website shuts down or what not. then the whole website should not be shout down. WHAT I got confused at this i think if someone does something illegal the website shouldn't be shut down, thats not how it should go because sometimes people don't understand that its illegal to do but at the same time i think it should be shut down because a lot of things can happen. It's stupid but at the same time it's not a stupid thing because if they do, do something illegal and the website gets shut off then they can learn there lesson from that.

I feel as though the legislation is being unfair. I think it's unfair just because everyone has to be accountable for someone else actions. Why should others suffer from ones damage?? Finding this on the internet can be helpful but also point as the same time. It's helpful in the sense of giving you the knowledge of the situation but also also pointless because the audience is only getting one side of it.

I think this legislation is wrong and a little extreme. I feel as tho a group should not suffer because of one person's mistake. But I also think there should be a penalty for those who take someones music,video etc…without giving them their credit. This legislation will make websites like Youtube, Dailymotion, Wikipedia etc…pointless to use & visit. I think many will suffer from this bill. The internet will be pretty much useless, so everyone should just grab a text book.

I think this is completely wrong, I feel like this is just another way for the government to control and parent not only the kids, but the parents as well. Because we follow a constitution that was created prior to the internet it is not exactly clear whether this falls under the first amendment, however there are ways to argue that it does. I feel that if the government was to sensor our internet then we wouldn't be much different from China in that sense especially if all/majority of free and social networking sites, were discontinued and/or users forced to pay. I feel that this new law is irrational, hasty and just another way to make the rich people richer and poor people poorer, hence widening the gap between rich, middle class, and poor.

I believe that the Internet Censorship is just another way to push someone's moral belief onto people. It violates our right to freedom of speech and it takes the job of parents in the situations. Like many other problems with have, such as curfew, has the government taking over and getting too personal with our lives.

Just because one person does something illegal the whole website should not be shout down. This would affect everyone who enjoys listening to music or go searching for things to do on the Internet. The Individual who copied the music should be heavily punished for doing this. I feel that the person that did this should be banned from the Internet and not be able to do anything and serve a long time in prison. I could try to persuade an individual that it is wrong to do illegal to down load, but what more can a person do to change the mind of another person. They will just continue to do what they do.

I think this law is just way too poorly written honestly. It leaves way too much room for interpretation as well as just ridiculous. I do understand why they want to do this but the fact of the matter is, the music industry and Hollywood is making all the money. I honestly feel like yeah it cool to support this artist or that artist but I don't think they need to be making that kind of money anyway. If that money was invested into education instead of these people that don't actually have "real jobs", we wouldn't have majority of the mess we have. If the money was in being a teacher, scientist, or something else I guarantee people would become more of that thing. If we allow this bill to become a law then we will be no better than China honestly. This is supposed to be the land of the free and the home of the brave. But all I see is constraints on what this country's citizens and scariness for change. What type of sense does that make? This bill is seriously ridiculous and needs to be reconsidered.

I'm not feeling it. I Feel as if the music industry and the movie industry have enough money to not have any complaints about Piracyand things of that nature . I also feel as if the laws being passed to censor the Internet are a little to extreme. 90% of the Internet is user generated , and a lot of people post things daily that isn't of their own content , and it may not even effect their profits like that. It's just an extreme law

I think this bill would be ineffective even if passed. The internet is has 2.1 billion users, a lot of which use these websites, even if you delete/fine/whatever you want to do to these websites, people will find newer ways to get free music.

I don't believe that this bill should become a bill. Whole websites shouldn't be shut down for an individual that commits a crime such as copyright infringement. Stop Online Piracy Act would possibly shut down websites that help people in more ways then one. Websites such as Facebook, Youtube, Myspace, etc help communicate with families, schools, and friends. Majority of the internet seemingly would be shut down and that is sad.

Regarding the legislation, me personally, I feel like this law is a bit extreme. If someone decides to post music or movies on websites the whole website should not be removed. If they feel like the content put on the website should be removed, they should just get it removed off of the site and not shut the whole website down.

Immediately I found the music industry to be in trouble because of how many people actually use the internet for music, to listen to and or upload. I understand why the government is doing this, and I'm all for companies making their rightfully earned money from the products they create, but to shut down an entire site seems a little ridiculous, especially when the majority of those sites are the reason the advertising for many of these companies have gotten so successful. The very thing they are looking to shit down is the very thing that sustains them in the world of entertainment. I think legislation should be directed to the individual, and the site itself, only because the site covers copyright agreements before people set up accounts.

I don't think this is the right thing to do, I feel as though this is not technically their place to put out such a law like this. It's not totally fair, the shutting down of the whole cite is just to drastic in my opinion.

Regarding this legislation I feel as though this shouldn't become a law, but I also think that more artist songs or products will be more so original and more self. I feel like there won't be any more access to history. or Internet access.

I dont think there should be a legislation like this because its not fair. The whole site shouldn't suffer because of one persons video. Also if this becomes active multiple websites will suffer and there will not longer be a youtube, medifafire, or any music or video watching sites.

I think that even though it effects the entertainment industries I think another section should make the laws. I think that with the entertainment industries being in charge they will change the internet to solely benefit them. I don't think the government or a specific industry should be allowed to do this. There is no what they would do this for education but all of a sudden it's important for industries that make billions to shut down cites because they feel there industry is at risk. Also I don't think this law has good enough set boundaries, and giving these companies this much power is something that will be hard to take back of we don't handle this properly.

I think that the law is a good one but the consequence shouldnt be so steep

This piece of legislation should (if it has enough momentum) to pass it should just be refined. The fact that a bill like this is trying to get passed is not even surprising to me it is just the fact that they being this single minded is incredible. Its like they lost the ability to think of ways to refine a bill and just said forget it, lets take them all down.

I don't see the exact reason for all of this censorship because to me it would pass at all seeing how some sites have too much power and for sites specifically telling people that join the site they are given unlimited freedom and that pretty much they can do with it as they want only causes people to stop and wonder if they really do have a certain amount of power when it comes to the internet. I also believe this is somewhat of a subtle outcry from parents who fill overwhelmed with everything that can be found on the internet and by being able to control if just a small piece of what the world can exactly view on the internet can be their own way of finding piece of mind within their own household.

I honestly think that it's unfair. To be really honest, I can understand if they want to do this with movies, it's more reasonable. But music? Some artist does that type of things on their own. So maybe it would put them in a weird spot. But movies? I can understand if they want to take the act with movies. If this was to happen, everything would be WAY overboard, to a level that no one is prepared for and everything is going to be stuck in a weird position. I can see now that other citizens will be Lobbying about this, or has already started.

America is supposed to be a place of freedom of speech. This law eliminates that. The entire website should not be shut down because it's the users that put this there. The users could be kicked off of this. With tumblr, that is your blog, the things you say. I feel as though they are looking in the wrong direction for internet laws. They should be looking at the overpaying of internet by hosts. they should be focusing on regulation of consumer payment, not censoring the internet.

Regarding legislation like this is think that they should revisit the content in there and what I covers because while it has good intentions but there a lot of things that can go wrong because its very vague. It might also greatly affect other industries positively or negatively.

I don't think that sites such as google should be blocked so people can't get to those "targeted" sites. But not everyone is "stealing" music or any other multimedia off the internet. It's only those who are. I also don't think that it's such a big deal that people are doing this, if the person who is the owner of the multimedia wants to press charges, that's on them, but if not then it shouldn't really matter.

It's really just another way to parent kids and enforce your own morals on someone else. Rules like this are unfair because it takes away the parent's right to parent their own children and it treats adults like children. What is the point of having rights if the government treats you like a kid anyway?

So, I get that Congress wants to block sites who infringe copyright laws. However, they should not go about it this way. It si not going to solve much because the internet is open. People can post what or copyright what and it is a waste of time to try and censor everything when they could be sending more time on other things. If they want to stop people from illegally accessing things that other people pay for, then don't let them upload their music sites at all. The school district blocks everything for us, so the government can do the same for all the sites who copyright. Not sure what it will solve though. I don't want it to be passed because frankly it is a lot easier to access things. I shouldn't be forced to just be able to get music from itunes. What if I am not a fan? What if I cannot afford to buy anything? I shouldn't be allowed to have access to the same music other people who can afford it listen to. Like they make it hard to do anything in this country. The government likes controlling everything but it's like chill. Not everyone is in the same boat or thinks the same. They try to go after the right people and completely forget about the wrong ones. It is a free country, treat it like one.

I think it's a good point that the government are trying to protect their system. However, they didn't really think it though when they're linking this law in because there will be loop wholes and stop sign that will make this even more complicated for workers and citizen. This need to be finalize before it's being passed. However, I think that it should not be passed just right off as how it is right now.

I think that this bill should not be passed. I believe that this bill if passed would basically shut down social websites. Facebook, twitter, tumblr, youtube etc; I think that if this does happen and the bill gets passed kids wouldn't be as interested in networking online I believe. I think that overall ruining kids social lives online wouldn't ruin it outside but I do think more crimes, violence, drugs etc; would occur. I think that congress should be happy that kids/teens are addicted to the sociable networks online rather then drugs, crimes etc; basically all the websites that kids go on will be shut down because of kids copying and pasting links into other sites. Overall this shouldn't be passed.

I see where they are coming from, with all of the pirating going on I could understand people getting fed up with it. But I feel like this bill is only stirring up more problems. We already have enough laws that people have problems with, like the curfew law for instance. I see the reason but I think this is just going to make more people angry with the government then they already are. And I feel like so many other protest are happening now they really don't need another one. So I think trying to pass laws like this isn't really helping, its just making everyone become angrier and creating more problems.

I agree, with so much access to media sources, how can it all be controlled?

I think that the law is meant for good, but that it will turn sour pretty soon. The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA – H.R.3261) works to stop online piracy or "stealing of copyrighted work". This, however would eliminate electronic books or electronic media, if I am not mistaken. This is not going to sit well with the people of America, as they enjoy reading electronic books (for some reason) and hearing music online. It is easily accessible to them. This law, along with the other acts Protect IP Act (PIPA – S.968) also censors things that are posted on the internet. This will not sit well with most of the writers or artists that their works on the web. I feel like the law is very likely to pass, unless people speak up about it. I think that the people should speak out about their rights to free speech. The law might be affective in eliminating copyright, but it will also do a good job of taking away the peoples' rights. In order to share out their opinions, the peoples can either protest, or go to their local city hall or even to the white house and speak out about what they think. They can also blog, while they still have the chance.

I think that this is a good point, it's fine to be wary of copyright infringement. But how would we punish thieves that are sneaking around the internet? This could lead to invasions of privacy.

I believe that this legislation is trying to enact on a problem that expands some news media on social media sites. But the one thing that I dont understand is what the Justice Department is specifically targeting. Say it was a ABC news segment posted on a Facebook site and then was unable to be traced or given resources and then exposed to a copyright law, does that make it infringement?

I believe the site users should be warned first, and told to remove the copyrighted material, and if they don't then it would be okay for them to take the site down.. I mean it is copyright infringement………………….

One word for this…. Unconstitutional!

True. Some people have actually embraced piracy since it enables people's interest in the media (which can encourage people to purchase paid content). In other words, some view it as free advertising.

First of all, I know a lot of people who use these websites to upload their OWN songs that they create for others to download. Taking these websites down will only make it harder for people to get their creations out there for people to see. Knowing how the government is, they're going to take advantage of this new law and take down every single website that they themselves can't make money off of. I do understand that people upload music that is supposed to be paid for so other people can download it for free, but these artists are millionaires regardless of how many people download their music illegally. It's all about greed really. They're acting as if this is making such a huge negative impact on the lives of these artists who live like kings and queens. Like Jay-z said, "I lost 30 million so I spent another 30…cuz unlike Hammer, 30 million can't hurt me." So why yall mad????? They all have money to last the rest of their lives. Anyway, to speak out against this legislation I would boycott like..the iTunes store or something. We have so much power to get the government to do whatever we want when we work together so I think sending each other music and not using online music stores would get them to do what we want them to do.

I support both sides. I think legislation should pass the law because I think it's wrong to take other people work for free when they're actually putting their work up online to make a living. For instance a lot of artist say they sing songs because that's something they like doing but at the end of the day, that music they're making is making their living. I also thing they shouldn't pass this law because it makes it hard for upcoming artist to put their work and let other companies/producers see their work. So in my opinion there's a good side and bad to this.

This seems like the wrong way to go about trying to prevent copyright infringement. Aside from clearly being censorship, I doubt it would work. The internet is a lawless, chaotic place. When one music-sharing site is shut down, another one will quickly spring up. It's going to censor the people who don't partake in copyright infringement and completely fail to stop the people who do.

I believe that removing websites that infringe upon copyright laws by taking other media sources' materials and using them as their own should in fact be removed. However, from what I understand, this bill is intended to stop other websites from taking media sources from other sources of media that claim those sources as their own. How exactly do websites use something from another source without infringing copyright laws? I found this bill a bit confusing to read about. What happens if something is a free media source and someone claims it (what if something is out there on the web and someone claims it and it is used)? What if something is taken from another source and altered in some way? The best thing to do to support this bill or speak against it would be to write to your congressman. For legislation like this, I think we should first consider what copyrighting is exactly and we should consider alternative punishments.

Is it wrong? Sure. But do artists get most of their music from albums? No, their main source of income is concerts. There are actually a few musicians who are pretty cool with piracy since it doesn't affect them that much.

Criminals will be criminals regardless. It's not worth destroying the Internet with a poorly-made, borderline totalitarian law.

Your right there is the privacy thing, but also musicians make music to be shared. People take pictures and upload them anyway. People who make things for the public cant just deny the public of getting it.

My opinion on this is that it changes the Freedom of Speech. The bill is as of now flawed. There needs to be changes in order for it to not effect the Freedom of Speech and only effect the problems brought to their attention.

I don't feel as though this should be passed. This isn't the best Idea because this could make a big impact on the internet and wouldn't really really give people the freedom they should be able to had to post to different things such as the internet on social networks and what not.

I like your link to Iran and China's internet blocking usage. I've heard many people call this bill the "Great firewall of America" similar to the Great firewall of China" which blocks sites such as google and facebook.

i hear u but do you think its wrong when these web sites leek things like albums and pics and things like that i mean they have priviecy to and copy rites

I think that, in theory, the law is a good idea. After all, people who create content should be able to do what they want with that content. Currently, the prevalence of pirating is costing many people their livelihoods – like music producers. However, I think that the law will not do the job it claims to do. Firstly, there isn't much of a "check" in the power of the Justice Department to take down websites. Their power relies on qualitative analysis of the website. They could certainly abuse the law to take down websites they just don't want up. Secondly, I don't think a bill like this would work. The "legal action" seems to be dedicated against the creators of the website (via fine and jail time) and against the site itself (by forcing search engines, social media, and other sites to prevent people from getting to the site). Neither of these methods would work well, because hackers would just figure out ways of avoiding either. Also, once the government gets control of search engines, social media, and other sites like that, it's censorship.

In order to protest this bill, I could write to my representatives in Congress. I could also participate in online discussions of the bill.

I think legislation should pass this bill, I don't see why people should be profitting off of other people artist hard work and time they put in to make an album. I however disagree with the idea of censorship. People go online to find things and get more knowledge about the things they need to know and if things are too blocked then that takes the whole purpose of the internet itself. What I could do is when I see someone maybe doing something they shouldn't bring it to their attention and let them know that the actions they are taking part of are illegal and they should think about it before they continue to steal.

This law will greatly disturb the internet. I agree on the fact that many websites do indulge in piracy but to censor websites due to the fact that it isn't theres is wrong. Simply put a code on what can be uploaded and what can't or make access limited to those who have gotten permission to have their stuff. But censoring entire websites is wrong i am against this bill,

Its understandable that the people in the entertainment industry are tired of people stealing their products, however I think that in an advancing society, musicians need to find more secure ways of keeping their products safe, instead of influencing the censorship of sites that aren't responsible. For example, websites like youtube will be enourmously effected by this bill because of people posting covers to songs, or videos with copyrighted music in the background. This is simply a result of advanced technology, and industries must adjust to this. This will put even more restrictions on a society that is struggling with economic progression; it's a thoughtful argument, but a horrible piece of legislation.

There are a million and one things wrong with this bill. Fortunately, there's pretty much no chance it's actually going to pass. There are too many people of too much importance for this to work. There was that day of protest yesterday, so that "STOP CENSORSHIP" banner was around most of the internet. I can sort of understand the original intention behind this: pirating music is something I can see people might want to stop. Of course, musicians get most of their music from concerts.

The law itself is going to pretty much destroy the Internet and most popular sites on the Internet, or at least for law-abiding citizens. People will always find a way around these flagrant violations of the constitution. This time, I don't really blame them; it's putting our internet on par with China and Iran. Good work, guys!

I'm pretty sure nothing would actually be stopped if this even passes - which it wouldn't. Every site of importance would likely just start using foreign servers, and anybody savvy and passionate enough would likely just start using foreign proxies. If we can't count on any sensible people on Congress putting a stop to this, then one would need to turn to this.

Basically, the cons far outweigh the pros here, and the arguments in favor are flimsy at best. Nothing is worth practically tearing down the Internet.

I don't think that the bill should be passed. I understand what they're trying to do and why they want something like this to be done, but in the long run I think it's just going to cause problems. Censoring things on the internet will just allow the government to go in and change anything they want to. This will give them direct access to all our information and whatever else we do on the computer/internet. To voice my opinion, I can talk to my congressman/representative about this and state how I feel.

I think that this piece of legislation is a ridiculously optimistic piece that should not get passed. It's optimistic because people are going to rebel against it anyway and still find ways, if it is passed, to get free stuff. Protesting is our right and we like to use that right a lot so that is a good way to speak against this legislation. I can see why it could be a good idea but I do not like it because personally I love free music.

Well I understand the frustration of losing rightfully earned profit with these sites but I don't think that this bill should be passed . I believe, there will be an uproar among the public if this bill were to be passed. Personally I feel like could make sure other people that feel the same way as me and get them to write to our congressmen with me so we can come together as a group and fight this bill.

I think that, while this legislation has good intentions, it seems like it opens doors for more extreme censorships issues. The other problem with these kind of legislature is that is borders on limiting people's rights to free speech and limits creativity. I think that it's important to talk to your congress rep if you ever feel unsure about anything that is about to pass.

I think that this piece of legislation should be shot and destroyed and then buried in a pit. It would kill the internet as we know it, and it would have a huge negative impact. I really do not think that this piece of legislation is a good idea. I have the right to do what I want on my internet especially since I'm paying for it and I feel like the government should not be able to decide the things I do and don't do on the internet. It completely disables the point of having internet. I could write blog posts or even make youtube videos to talk about it. I could even lobby against it.

I guess I can understand both sides of the argument here. Yes, Congress wants to block sites that condone illegal activity. Yes, blocking these sites is censorship. Illegal activity is bad. Censorship is bad. People CARE more about government censorship as a "bad thing." This is definitely NOT the road Congress should head down - especially since everyone is already pissed off at government. You don't people downloading things illegally? Make it harder for these sites to go up in the first place, but you can't just block people's access to them. Soon enough, people are going to start comparing this to the censorship in China and stuff. Yeah, THAT will make the people happy. No. Government shouldn't have the right to control what sites I want or do not want to go onto with the computer I have access to. But I don't really know what should be done about it… Protest? Sue every congressman that supports the bill? Sue the bill itself? Who knows. But, America can't let this be passed.

I think that this legislation should not be passed. The main reason is that, similar to the issues in the electoral college, this provides a mechanism for the government to abuse their power. In addition, the government would not be able to go ahead and lock the entire site, only the domain alias. For example, foreign piracy sites could still be accessed by the IP address (such as 17.172.224.47 for apple.com) unless the government restructured the entire system of connecting the internet's "series of tubes." Thus, since entire supposed purpose of the bill would have an incredibly simple workaround, the bill could only promote censorship throughout the inter webs. In opposition of this bill, one can simply sign the numerous online petitions arguing against the bill's legislation.

i hate to say yea and no because i understand that things can be stoped like facebook and twitter but at the same time people artist who ever still has that rite to what they put on the internet especlly if they are putting things out that are worth money. and if they dont pay their share of the money then yes that is consider stelling so thas how i see it

There is no way it should or could pass. As a law it would destroy any sites marketing free expression. Although copyright infringement is a huge problem, this is not the way to go about. With this we would contradict all the political disapproval's we make to more oppressive countries, like Iran and China. It won't pass. I hope.

I think this legislation should not be passed. I could write my congressman. For what it's worth, there's a lot of info on this bill here: http://americancensorship.org/infographic.html and here: http://americancensorship.org/ (sorry, I can't hyperlink in comments).

Anyway, I really don't think this is a good idea. It would reduce the number of internet start ups due to higher risk, and people would have significantly less freedom to post to websites such as Tumblr, Facebook, Youtube, the list goes on. And while it seems almost trivial, virtually no one reads the terms of service for a website, which violation of could be a felony if this bill goes through.