SOPA and PIPA bills should be stopped

This should be an excellent opportunity for me,and hopefully to everyone watching too, to learn about this important piece of legislation. first,I will present my case Then examine my opponentsThe two pieces of legislation, SOPA(House) and PIPA(Senate), are still being debated on the floor. Nobody wants to create 1984 and censor the Internet. The pleas from companies like Google and Wikapedia are not at what the proposed bills aim to do, but in their possible unintended effects should they be abused. Its the vagueness that worries the technology companies. The provisions of the bill, they argue, should be specific enough that even it it was abused, Sites like facebook and debate. org would not be in danger of a shutdown over a misunderstanding or small oversight. Here is my case: The resolution calls for the Bills to be stopped. I disagree. These bills should continue in their course through the legislature. Why, inquiring minds want to know, would you want such an ungodly piece of legislation floating around the halls of congress, why would you want that? There are 435 members in the house of representatives that participate in a legislative process that is annoying slow, but amazingly thorough. The proposed bill in the house, SOPA, has already withered countless ammedments. The latest 8 ammednets, under the name the managerial amendments(1), fundamentally change the substance of the bill. These amendments are specific to addressing the concerns that this bill would cause unintended harm( e. g. shutting down the L. A. times for a copyrighted photo a user posted in an obscure comment section) This believes the debate should continue. Concerned parties, companies, and citizens should keep coming forward and the amendments should keep coming until we have a bill that protects protects the rights of property owners but doesn't encroach on the liberty of others. Government will succumb to the apathy that some citizens have adopted towards regulating the Internet. Indeed the task of designing a mechanism that protects rights but doesn't hinder the freedom or take away the liberty of others is a difficult. One that must be approached with patience. It can be done. The world we inhabit is vastly more complex than the Internet, it does not stop us from moving forward to design mechanism that work, laws that work. In the real world theft is deterrent very effectively without encroaching on the liberties of others. If we can do that in the ever more difficult environment of the REAL world, then we have no need to despair in addressing the cyber world. to review my opponents arguments: 1. " bills allow any business, that can prove any copyrighting has been done on a certain page, can shut down the entire site. " While that's oversimplified, that is infact already law. If my opponents is against such regulations he might consider arguing against the Digital Millennium Copyright Act(2) We have all experienced the effects of this law. you find yourself listening to music on youtube. on such an occasion you may have clicked on a good song, like "heard it through the grapevine' by Credence clearwater Revival, and to your great annoyance rather than hearing a thumping bass line your greeted with a message declaring that your beloved content has been removed due violations of copyright infringement. A pity you think, just before you just click on another video that hasn't been censored yet. This is already law. The businesses that own material send out cease and desist letters to companies that are unknowingly hosting copyrighted content. Those websites, like Google and youtube, are pretty good about removing the content. Should a website neglect those cease and desist letters then a judge may ORDER a website to remove the content or risk shutdown. and rightly so! this point is non unique to SOPA and I would ask the voters to note its non pertinent to this debate. 2. The shutdown of Mega upload proves that the international community is able to work together to bring down pirating websites. This is a real life example of how your example has no merit. I would also like to add that just because something is difficult to enforce doesn't mean it should be legal. Preventing Murder is hard, but we try anyway.3. Lets dispel that myth right now: "The reach of the bill does not cover any U. S. sites, including Facebook,Twitter,eBay,Youtube, and many other popular domestic dsestintion. It focus only on sites that are beyond the reach of U. S. law" Amendment:Application to Foreign sites only(3)(. http://judiciary.house.gov...'s%20Amendment.pdf) Lets step back for a second. This is an amendment that is currently on the bill, perhaps my opponent didn't look at the amendments, Its ok I don't not hold it against him. I merely wish to show how this highlights my argument:The legislative process is working. These amendments that keep rolling in are changing the bill, as all bills before it have endured, and we have reason to believe the end product will be something that protects property rights without encroaching on the liberty of others. This is a perfect example of my argument in real life.4. Nothing to do with the bill5. nothing to do with the bill6. Bringing down websites that steal copyrighted material for a profit are a necessity and a right guaranteed to all Americans, despite whatever camaraderie that may exist between the bootlegging community.7. Our economic system demands that we protect the property of others. It demands it. despite apathy. I've already explained how despite its challenge it not as bleak as it looks furthermore, The united is second to none in innovation. I am willing to put 100 years of American invention up against any other western civilization's 100 year period. This country has had had world changing inventions followed by world changing inventions. one after the other. Due in no small part to this countries laws, government, and economic model. This economic model not only rewards innovation, but demands it. This government not only says it prohibits the infringement of copyrights, but it is exceedingly proficient at enforcing it. These inventions do not happen by chance. The United States takes more care, time, and money into ensuring that innovators and entrepreneur's will be rewarded and recognised in America, and their products will be protected. We have examples of other countries in history who have the idea that intellectual property is everyone to own. Those countries not have a history of innovation. I am disgusted at people not even justifying pirating anymore, but actually making the argument that its a right! the inventions of others are their right to own. This is not the American way. Thank youI appreciate the opportunity to debate this all important topic 1. . http://judiciary.house.gov...'s%20Amendment.pdf 2. . http://en.wikipedia.org...3. . http://judiciary.house.gov...'s%20Amendment.pdf