I would worry more about ACTA, as it is just as bad.
* MadComp protests on Facebook and Twitter! I'm also emailing my government in Ottawa (as I'm a Canadian) to let them know how I feel.
I already wrote to the british prime minister. Didn't get a brilliant response though
(2012-01-18, 09:02 PM)Anxiety Wrote: [ -> ] (2012-01-18, 06:57 PM)Tom K. Wrote: [ -> ]I already wrote to the british prime minister. Didn't get a brilliant response though
Did you get one at all?
Kind of, I got a letter from his office. According to UK law the prime minister (or his office) must reply to all communications from the public.
Basically it's a little pree-formatted letter that says something along the lines of "Thank you for taking your time and trouble to contact the Prime Minister. While he cannot reply directly to every letter, he appreciates your thoughts. BLAH BLAH BLAH".
(2012-01-17, 10:39 PM)Odin of Aesir Wrote: [ -> ]I think there might be a fundamental problem with Internet websites just shutting down. True, it is demonstrative to the government that a great amount of people will be inconvenienced, just as what could very well happen if and when SOPA is passed. However, I think that there are multiple sides to this issue. Look at it from the point-of-view of the adults: this is to help protect the creative people, the filmmakers and the musicians. Because people in the Millennial generation (of or around the years 1996 to current day) are so used to the internet being uncensored, this is a great upset. I myself was outraged when I initially heard about SOPA. However, this is also an example of what is known as "spin doctoring," or twisting the facts to represent your point of view.
I, personally, think there should be a more moderate way to go about this, instead of an Internet boycott. My solution would be to send an email like the following to all the members of the House in one's own state.
Feel free to edit this any way you want.
Quote:Subject: Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA)
Dear [Representative],
I believe that there are several flaws in the Stop Online Piracy Act. Below, please find several of my grievances:
1) The act gives the government rights to, in a word, censor the internet. This goes against the First Amendment rights given to the citizens of the United States.
2) There are more efficient ways to shut down piracy than to shut down websites that allow for video and audio to be played or streamed.
3) The bill has harsh penalties for anyone found in violation of the bill. Five years of prison time seems to be extraneous in that it seems to be a means scare people into behaving.
However, there are some positives to SOPA, which I will spell out below:
1) SOPA does, I admit, give creators of music and other media more security in placing their content on the internet.
2) The ability to see the Internet Protocol (IP) address of offending websites is helpful for taking offenders into custody.
That being said, I believe that SOPA is too extreme. If the penalties for offenders, up to a point, were less severe than they currently are (for example, a fine such as stated in the beginnings of video films), then the bill might not be so hard-pressed against. Also, the ways in which a site is defined as "facilitating theft" are somewhat unclear in my eyes. If this were cleared up, I believe that less people would be willing to take such extreme measures to protest the bill.
In the post-script, please find a list of links that I believe would help you see this bill from the average internet-user's point of view.
All the best,
[your name]
P.S. As promised, here are the links. I hope that you will see why people are outraged:
http://fightforthefuture.org/pipa
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...-LXYMZ.DTL
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/t...story.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/201...firms-sopa
I posted thio as an open letter to my journal's readers. Hope it helps!
You mean the site that you're trying to advertise and are denied support for? makes sense.