If the principles behind SOPA were applied to other things,

- police would close gardening shops if someone says they saw a client bought anything that was later used to grow pot

- pharmacies would be shut down by the police for selling syringes if someone says one of these was used for drugs

- gun producers would be shut down for selling guns if one of them was said to have been used to commit a crime.

And if you think "well, in theory, but of course it isn't going to be used like that" - well, it definitely IS going to be used like that. DMCA is being used like that (and part of the reasons SOPA is being introduced is because DMCA has some fairness provisions that make it harder to abuse , even though it is very easy to use ).

Also, PATRIOT act was for terrorists, and wouldn't be used for anything else, right? That's why 99% of the times it was used have nothing to do with terrorism.

SOPA is designed to be abused the way those people cry about. Make no mistake. And you'll suffer its consequences like the rest of wolf criers, even if you wouldn't know it.

Yeah, you're completely right. But I don't understand why so many are against his comments. He's making a good point that there are a lot of people defending torrent and file sharing sites like they're bastions of freedom and the good guys. The reality is that theyre known to be used for sharing copyrighted files illegally. Some even advertise it. There's really not much of a defense for them, we all know what they do. Hell, even I use them at times which I know is wrong (I'm sorry, I'm only human).

The GP's intent wasn't to support SOPA. Read his comments again, please, as he makes a good point. These sites are fighting SOPA because they know they'll be easily shut down if it passes and they know they're providing copyrighted content.

The difference between people like us here on HN and those that run the sites in question is that our aim would most likely be to disrupt content delivery legitimately through a startup and they're just trying to keep getting that CPC ad revenue. Our reasons for being against SOPA are very different and he sees no defense for the sites in question.

While I see your point, I don't think it's fair to chalk up the opposition to merely piracy supporters. There are a large number of people who fear the broader ramifications, and a lot of organizations, who are against SOPA and not necessarily pirates.

Reading the description of the bill below, it does seem awful. But like I said, up to this point I hadn't even read it, and the reason for that is there's so much noise coming from the pro-torrenting lobby, I just tune out the whole debate these days.

(i should note that i don't live in the USA, otherwise I probably would have read about the bill itself by now)

It's not fair, you're right. However I'm seeing a lot pro piracy people out there and a lot of the top stories on this have been either coming from or somehow supporting the major piracy, excuse me, "peer to peer file exchange and sharing" sites.

I doubt anyone here will say SOPA has any redeeming qualities whatsoever but the comments and stories sometimes stray into the area we're talking about and we're only speaking in the context of those sites.

I agree. You really should look into SOPA though. The bill is dangerous in that it can be abused to shut down legit sites with hardly any evidence for infringement at all.

That said, I agree with your sentiment about the piracy supporters. A lot of people like to rant about freedom this and freedom that but it just doesn't hold up when you talk about piracy. There are a plethora of sites that do just blatantly rip off content producers, often times bragging about it (looking your way, Pirate Bay), while at the same time hiding behind the ideals of freedom.

No one will argue that the net is powerful and it's the freedom of the Internet that's a huge part of its power to empower people but we cannot sit and pretend that these sites should be left alone because that would hurt freedom. Yes, we do need to protect freedom for and on the Internet but using the freedom defense to argue for some of these sites is just ridiculous.

If I produce a piece of data that I charge for and it gets distributed freely on these sites without my authorization that is just plain wrong. No one is entitled to free music, movies, software, etc. they're just not unless it was the original intent of the author to give it away freely. This is real simple stuff and I can't see how people defend piracy like this. "oh but the corporations are evil, they lock me in, restrict my freedom, whine whine, moan, moan". Well you don't have to purposely hurt them or "take them down" just because you believe software, audio, video, whatever should be free. What you do is either use the alternatives made by like minded folks or create your own. Why force an agenda on the rest of us? That's extremism.

SOPA is a bad law and I'm ardently oppossed to it but let's not frame this issue like the poor underdog torrent/file sharing sites are championing freedom and good while the evil corporations are trying to enslave us all. It's just not so (at least in those terms, arguably). Piracy is illegal and has been since before the Internet. What part of distributing paid content on a worldwide scale for free is okay? This isn't about your belief that you're entitled to x, y, and z free. Its about this big "evil" corporations wanting to get paid when you use their product. They obviously are making things people want and enjoy otherwise it wouldn't be piracy that put them out of business, it'd be lack of sales and no one would even want to pirate their product, whatever the product may be.

There's too much talk about the obviously unethical file sharing sites. They're no angels themselves. So instead of framing it in their terms we should be framing it like this:

In an effort to stop piracy (which is not a bad thing) these large corporations and government officials are supporting a bill that has obvious potential for abuse and can hurt legit business owners or content providers in the process. The bill is over-reaching and can hurt future innovation.

Let's talk in those terms instead of defending known violators of existing laws.

But as you can tell from the down votes, there are lots of HN readers who do think people are rightfully entitled to content they had no hand in producing (without paying for it). I've got no idea how they come to this conclusion.

I'm so glad there are some voices of reason here. I don't get that view either! I couldn't believe I was downvoteed for that.

Seriously, guys, if someone creates something that others enjoy and benefit from they can choose to keep it to themselves or distribute it. If they charge money for it they are entitled to do so and we should be lucky they've chosen to give it out at all rather than withhold it.

I really honestly, seriously would like someone who disagrees to explain why I'm wrong. Forget the idealism surrounding "freedom" because that's not at issue and I probably agree with you on that. I'm talking specifically about how taking anything that costs money and distributing it freely (like torrent sites) by circumventing the creator's chosen channel and depriving him/her of their chosen fee is at all okay?

I hate all this rhetoric about "evil corporations" and how everything should be free. It's okay to have that view and put it into practice yourself and with people who feel the same but why do we have to force that belief on everyone like its the One True Way? Live and let live. Some people put food on the table with the stuff they sell. Others give it freely. It's a choice. Maybe businesses do engage in price gouging and other unethical practices but that's not the issue. The issue is simply why do some feel it's okay to distribute paid content by means of piracy? In this context the definition of piracy is circumventing the chosen distribution channel in a way that deprives the original creator of the fee they would otherwise collect.

EDIT: As to the downvotes, I'm beginning to believe that many people are either not understanding the issues discussed in other people's comments as they are too busy thinking up arguments against them as they read. This goes for the original posts too. I'm seeing the comments stray far from the real point of the authors and I'm talking about first replies, not replies to replies or deeper. Let's reflect on what we read before going into automatic "My views don't support this"/knee-jerk reaction mode where we shut out anything that doesn't fit our worldview. You don't have to change your mind, just make sure you at least listen to something different otherwise it's not a discussion but an echo chamber.