Automakers that support SOPA

[bhtooefr]

If you haven't heard of SOPA, the "Stop Online Piracy Act", read this first. Essentially, though, it provides a mechanism for corporations to "disappear" websites, quickly, with no meaningful recourse.

Several automakers are in a group, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, that supports SOPA.

Those manufacturers are:

• BMW
• Chrysler
• Ford (which also explicitly supports SOPA)
• General Motors
• Jaguar
• Land Rover
• Mazda
• Mercedes-Benz
• Mitsubishi
• Porsche
• Toyota
• Volkswagen
• Volvo

If SOPA passes, VWvortex's domain could actually be blocked from the US, for sharing various information that automakers don't want out there.

Might be a good idea to contact your representatives in Congress, if you live in the US, as well as contact these automakers to put pressure on them to denounce SOPA.

[BeaArthur]

Nice to see Kia and Hyundai are not on this list.

[Tiny4cyl]

WHERE WILL MKIV kids get rim advice

[Bigtree]

Corporations have the power to "disappear" websites? I think your talking Obama.

[SnowGTI2003]

SOPA is likely already dead in the water.

Go Daddy took a pro-SOPA stance and lost massive amounts of business. Google, Facebook etc.. are all very anti-SOPA.

There are more than enough big $ companies out there to make sure SOPA dies. I'm not concerned at all.

Go Daddy's SOPA foul up
http://www.law.com/jsp/cc/PubArticle...ddys_SOPA_Saga

[bhtooefr]

Except there's far more money supporting SOPA - $21 million for, $5 million against.

Now, the internet companies do have a trump card - they've been discussing shutting down in protest of SOPA. Google and Facebook shutting down and putting a notice that they're doing it because of SOPA would have a HUGE effect, but without that...

[patrikman]

Corporations have the power to "disappear" websites? I think your talking Obama.

You are likely full of **** and don't have a clue.

[SidVicious]

SOPA is likely already dead in the water.

Go Daddy took a pro-SOPA stance and lost massive amounts of business. Google, Facebook etc.. are all very anti-SOPA.

There are more than enough big $ companies out there to make sure SOPA dies. I'm not concerned at all.

Go Daddy's SOPA foul up
http://www.law.com/jsp/cc/PubArticle...ddys_SOPA_Saga

GoDaddy lost 21,000 domains out of 51 MILLION. Ouch.

[stascom]

GoDaddy lost 21,000 domains out of 51 MILLION. Ouch.

on the first few days it was over 70k. some came back after GD back pedaled on their stance - you can't beat their deals (guilty of this myself)

[Bigtree]

You are likely full of **** and don't have a clue.

Yawn.

[BRealistic]

If you haven't heard of SOPA, the "Stop Online Piracy Act", read this first. Essentially, though, it provides a mechanism for corporations to "disappear" websites, quickly, with no meaningful recourse.

.

The link is the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF).
I suspect they are describing the worst case for how SOPA could be used.
And that is fine- we need to consider how a law can be abused.

As far as The Car Lounge and VWVortex goes- what content on this site could be deemed as piracy by auto manufacturers?
Such sites actually spread interest in their products- so I find it hard to believe that an auto company would actively try to shut down the site.
Unless... there was some bad press being propagated. But that would not fall under SOPA.

[bhtooefr]

The trick is that the process allows for very little recourse - no trial whatsoever - by the affected site owner.

So, if I'm running WidgetCo, and I don't like what's on The Car Lounge, I can CLAIM that VWvortex is violating my rights, to their domain provider, payment providers, and ad providers, and they have five days to cut VWvortex off. No trial.

[patrikman]

Yawn.

I still think your making things up.

[BRealistic]

The trick is that the process allows for very little recourse - no trial whatsoever - by the affected site owner.

So, if I'm running WidgetCo, and I don't like what's on The Car Lounge, I can CLAIM that VWvortex is violating my rights, to their domain provider, payment providers, and ad providers, and they have five days to cut VWvortex off. No trial.

The only way that would make sense is if the company that prompts the closing of a website is financially liable for revenue lost due to the closed website if the accusations later prove to be false.
And from a legal standpoint, I suspect they could be held liable for revenues lost due to false accusations.

[uniseriate]

As far as The Car Lounge and VWVortex goes- what content on this site could be deemed as piracy by auto manufacturers?
Such sites actually spread interest in their products- so I find it hard to believe that an auto company would actively try to shut down the site.
Unless... there was some bad press being propagated. But that would not fall under SOPA.

Manufacturers would want to go after sites that post service manuals, training information, and other proprietary information that people upload like ETKA.

Funny enough, the second result on Google for ETKA is a post on VWVortex on where to access it.

[AHFlynn]

Except there's far more money supporting SOPA - $21 million for, $5 million against.

Now, the internet companies do have a trump card - they've been discussing shutting down in protest of SOPA. Google and Facebook shutting down and putting a notice that they're doing it because of SOPA would have a HUGE effect, but without that...

this ^

from what ive heard, the big issue is that the old farts in congress dont quite understand the dynamics of the internet all that well and to a lot of them its just a simple issue of stopping copyright infringement on the internet.

i didnt think about it but vwvortex could easily be shut down by this, we link copyrighted videos all the time like top gear clips and racing footage.

i actually almost hope it passes, itll be a huge wakeup call to people who think nothing that happens in washington effects them. get the idiots off facebook and in the streets for once.

[bmann]

You just know that if this gets passed, we'll have some nutty fundamentalist senator using this new found power over the internet and its service providers to pass a law that has everyone who downloads kinky porn arrested. What will we do then, with 82% of Congress in jail?

[BRealistic]

You just know that if this gets passed, we'll have some nutty fundamentalist senator using this new found power over the internet and its service providers to pass a law that has everyone who downloads anything they deem unpatriotic arrested. What will we do then, with 82% of America in jail?

Fixed.

The whole penalty without due process thing seems very unconstitutional.
But who needs that old rag anyways.

[zaYG]

Corporations have the power to "disappear" websites? I think your talking Obama.

Corporations do. Corporations own Obama...and the rest of Washington.

[jettagli1991]

Such sites actually spread interest in their products- so I find it hard to believe that an auto company would actively try to shut down the site.
Unless... there was some bad press being propagated. But that would not fall under SOPA.

You'd think that would be common sense to them, but it's not always the case. Lawyers don't think that way. Like how Volkswagen went after every enthusiast website that used their name, stopped allowing certain aftermarket parts to be produced for air-cooled models, even though they no longer sold those parts themselves. I know a ton of the air-cooled guys who owned newer VWs as daily drivers decided to never give them another dime, and only bought other makes from then on. Ford was doing that a while back too, not allowing a Mustang forum to print a calendar featuring members cars because they claimed they owned the rights to images of said modded Mustangs. Nothing like slapping your loyal customers in the face. I'm sure these same companies would love to kill free online resources in attempt to make their service departments more money.

[leaftye]

The only way that would make sense is if the company that prompts the closing of a website is financially liable for revenue lost due to the closed website if the accusations later prove to be false.
And from a legal standpoint, I suspect they could be held liable for revenues lost due to false accusations.

It should include more than just lost revenue during the closure. Even a temporary closure can permanent loss of momentum that a company can't recover from.

[stascom]

You'd think that would be common sense to them, but it's not always the case. Lawyers don't think that way. Like how Volkswagen went after every enthusiast website that used their name, stopped allowing certain aftermarket parts to be produced for air-cooled models, even though they no longer sold those parts themselves. I know a ton of the air-cooled guys who owned newer VWs as daily drivers decided to never give them another dime, and only bought other makes from then on. Ford was doing that a while back too, not allowing a Mustang forum to print a calendar featuring members cars because they claimed they owned the rights to images of said modded Mustangs. Nothing like slapping your loyal customers in the face. I'm sure these same companies would love to kill free online resources in attempt to make their service departments more money.

I approve this message.

[nm+]

You'd think that would be common sense to them, but it's not always the case. Lawyers don't think that way. Like how Volkswagen went after every enthusiast website that used their name, stopped allowing certain aftermarket parts to be produced for air-cooled models, even though they no longer sold those parts themselves. I know a ton of the air-cooled guys who owned newer VWs as daily drivers decided to never give them another dime, and only bought other makes from then on. Ford was doing that a while back too, not allowing a Mustang forum to print a calendar featuring members cars because they claimed they owned the rights to images of said modded Mustangs. Nothing like slapping your loyal customers in the face. I'm sure these same companies would love to kill free online resources in attempt to make their service departments more money.

Lawyers only act when their clients tell them to. There's no roving bans of lawyers suing websites just because, they're doing it because VW is paying them.

[Mr.Veedubya]