User blog comment:SubAqua/Freedom is the right of all Sentient internet Users!!!/@comment-24510871-20120116171437

I'm fairly up-to-date with the issues of SOPA and PIPA. Despite living in the UK, I strongly believe the effects of these bills will effect the entirety of the internet--pretty much the world. Huge websites such as Wikipedia and YouTube will fall into a state of disrepair and irreplaceable content will be lost. The same applies to networks such as Wikia. Businesses could be shut down and even whole countries thrown into turmoil (several countries rely on the internet for a large portion of their business). The social lives of people as a whole would be affected due to effects this bill would have on sites such as Facebook and Twitter. Not only are most of the people that visit these sites are oblivious to these bills, but their lives as a whole will be affected. This being one of the main reasons I oppose these acts. I may be reiterating a few points here but there isn't any other way in which I can emphasize what I'm trying to say enough.

Based on what I've read in the comments on this post and the numerous videos it does not seem at all likely that this will pass. I've never really understood the American political system (politics in general) and what it takes for certain laws and acts to be passed, although I'm sure something that would effect such a huge chunk of modern society today would surely lead to an arranged meeting of political powers from different countries. I mean, other countries across the world could suffer from lack of trade. Media as a whole would take a huge loss and many people would lose their jobs due to some companies having to shut down.

What I feel has been quite overlooked in this issue is what can and cannot be copyrighted, who has the ability to copyright things, as well as what a supposed copyright infringement has to go through before it becomes official and action is taken. I know for a fact that companies can easily copyright things such as music, clips from advertisements/TV shows/movies, pictures, etc. I also know that people who have created content (music artists, artists, directors) can copyright similar things. However, what I've noticed more and more is that people have been able to or have been pushing to have the ability to copyright written text. For example, say if I were to quote a book or an article in this comment, it could be copyrighted and whoever copyrighted it would have the right to take it down. Something else I've noticed is that people have been able to patent ideas. So if you drew something based off of someone else's idea/concept that drawing could be taken down due to copyright infringement, regardless of whether or not you credited where your idea came from. This lays out many problems because as we all know (or should know, at least) is that people can easily have the same ideas and their work could be unfairly taken down.

Not only are these bills contradicting Amendments (could someone explain whether those are just US-based or not?), but they affect basic human rights. The freedoms of speech, expression (I consider the freedom of expression different to that of the freedom of speech), information, press, assembly and association are all either violated, contradicted or affected if the SOPA and PIPA bills were to be passed. No law should be able to restrict any freedoms based on the ideas of greed and pride. In spite of what I have said I'm all for taking down blatantly copyrighted material from the internet, however, I do not think that these bills pursue that cause thoughtfully or meaningfully enough to pass as a legitimate way of combating copyright infringement.

I know there is little chance (from what I've read, at least) that these bills will be passed, I just needed to state those things again. I think that there is no reason whatsoever for these acts (based in America) should be passed and affect something as global as the internet. Any facts that I may (most probably) have missed out or have gotten wrong then please let me know.