Stop SOPA, save the internet

[MotF Bane]

This morning I just got an email from FreePress talking about how OWS is being suppressed, blah blah blah... nothing about this. Not a peep. Priorities?

 

[Triumph]

nm...

 

[darkewaffle]

kill jobs and great startup companies, huge blogs, and social networks.

Oh man, I may have to say let this one ride

Also it appears that this bill may put Justin Bieber in jail for 5 years. Kind of compelling argument in favor of it as far as I can tell lol.

Seriously OP's article at the very least seems like an overblown "Call to Arms" and has less than a paragraph about what the actual bill entails. The version I've been reading comes from the House of Representatives, I don't think it's as bad as everyone is making it out to be. But I really don't feel up to finding/reading the Senate version for comparison either lol.

I think some of the generalizations it makes are misplaced or poorly thought out, but I see where it's coming from.

The emphasis given to 'domain names' sounds like it's the same problem with emphasizing IP addresses; just because one user on your WiFi does something illegal doesn't mean the guy who pays for the connection is liable necessarily. Same with this, just because some guy has a Geocities site with unlawful content doesn't mean the whole domain should be at risk, I don't think this bill really addresses that, or at least could be interpreted to make the whole domain liable. I think.

Further the terms of exactly 'what' determines whether a website is "infringing" or not is not even in the document, it simply references a number of articles from other documents, so for me it's currently unknown what all that entails. I understand the desire to be compliant with existing legislation but I think that's a very key part of this bill, I wish it was included.

Also the bill details what action the "Attorney General" can take against said websites, but I (at least not yet) haven't found the details for 'how' the AG is notified of these sites or what sort of process is in place to (hopefully) prevent frivolous abuse of the bill. Who can submit claims and what kind of 'filter' do they go through?

Also Section 201, which somehow is supposed to put Justin Bieber in jail, is pretty convoluted. But it sounds like it has provisions for relatively private viewing of, say, Netflix and Youtube and streaming music and the like. But I also think it's providing legislation against some guy using Pandora or Youtube to, say, DJ a party. Which is probably already against the ToS for the subscribers, but is now incorporating that into law as well.

Also I'm no expert but am I reading this correctly in that it only applies to foreign sites (foreign meaning the domains are not registered in the US)? It seems like the bill (again, the House bill at least) is targeting the likes of ThePirateBay and other foreign sites that are very difficult to deal with because of the discrepancies between foreign and domestic laws. So instead of attacking the source directly, the bill tries to use other means to instead cut ties to the source.

I do not believe it is provisioning for any retribution on domestic sites.

I think the bigger problem is the emphasis on this kind of legislature to pander to lobbyists and the fact that we even have to wade through it in the midst of bigger issues, but that's another story.

 

[Triumph]

I agree with darkwaffle, in that I don't know what I'm supposed to be upset about. All I see is an emotionally charged editorial with little factual information included.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Here's one Senator's take:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-ron-wyden/we-cant-take-the-internet_b_1097305.html

 

[woolfe9999]

Oh man, I may have to say let this one ride
[Snipped for brevity]

You're correct that the OP blog is long on rhetoric and short on facts. It could be a lot more informative about what the bill really does. I skimmed through the House version in your link. It's more limited than is suggested by the OP blog, but at the same time, it is indeed quite far reaching and something that should concern everyone.

A clarification on your question about foreign versus domestic sites. The bill is very complicated. Part of it applies only to foreign sites while part of it applies to both foreign and domestic sites. The part that applies only to foreign sites is where the AG can apply for a court injunction that will require ISPs and search engines to de-link/block the infringing site. That indeed seems to only apply to foreign sites.

However, the next part applies to any infringing site that is selling anything to US customers, whether the site is foreign or domestic. That part allows the AG to apply for an injunction that would require payment providers (i.e. Paypal and credit card services) to block payments to infringing sites, but doesn't require the ISP's or search engines to block the sites themselves. At least, that is what I can tell from my skimming of the bill.

Someone, somewhere, needs to do a comprehensive and objective analysis of the bill and translate it to the general public.

- wolf

 

[wirednuts]

yeah mozilla has a link on their start page to this. they are basically claiming that if these bills pass, they will be creating a black market internet where all of cool people will go while daddy government wants us on their own version of china net.

https://wfc2.wiredforchange.com/o/9042/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=8173

i think this probably should be a MUCH bigger story then it is. i also heard about this on molly's rants- http://news.cnet.com/molly-rants/ and to be honest, molly is ALWAYS right

By my reading, there's nothing acceptable about SOPA. I'm not alone in this assessment. The Electronic Frontier Foundation pledges a multi-installment series on how SOPA will destroy the Internet and kill innovation, saying it simply cannot be fixed and must be killed. And they've got unlikely bedfellows: even a major Tea Party faction has come out against SOPA and the Protect IP Act, calling them dangerous Internet censorship bills--which they are.

 

[hal2kilo]

If this bill passes I'm going to be so pissed off, I don't know what I'll do.

Move out of your parents basement and get a job?

 

[sportage]

My great grandpa can remember where there were no such thing as speed limit signs on roads. But back then, cars couldn't go 120+ mph. Limiting internet freedom was inevitable. The issue is how corrupt those in charge are, when this comes down.
Can they be bought? Paid off? Owned?
As with state no smoking laws, in most cases the casino's are given a free pass to ignore the law. It's all about money, power, control and greed.
And we all know where that leaves the little guy.... now don't we.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Just legalize mp3 downloads and pot smoking and 90% of the lefties would simply disapear back to their basements.

 

[-Slacker-]

Just legalize mp3 downloads and pot smoking and 90% of the lefties would simply disapear back to their basements.

Stay classy.

 

[Spikesoldier]

yeah mozilla has a link on their start page to this. they are basically claiming that if these bills pass, they will be creating a black market internet where all of cool people will go while daddy government wants us on their own version of china net.

https://wfc2.wiredforchange.com/o/9042/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=8173

i think this probably should be a MUCH bigger story then it is. i also heard about this on molly's rants- http://news.cnet.com/molly-rants/ and to be honest, molly is ALWAYS right

i could see that. let the freedom of ideas on the internet pass for those who are wealthy and have no motivation to change the status quo except to find new, clever ways to fuck over their fellow man

while you shut down the internet for those who want 'change' and give them china-net instead, with heavy handed enforcement for 'anti-government' ideas.

 

[ericlp]

Hmmm, I can't believe that a tech forum.... That this isn't sticked yet. Sigh.... I dunno, if this does pass I think there will be some sort of Internet underground movement that just by passes every thing.

I don't know what to say about this... other then I'd like to see who actually voted YES for this... I wonder how much $$ congress reps are getting for voting "yes"... Kinda sad that our government is bought out by lobbyist of the record industry.

Tho I kinda agree with Dave. Maybe it would wake up a WHOLE bunch of people? Sometimes it has to get really bad before it can get really BETTER. Tho.... It's kinda strange that our government is stupid and most people don't understand the bill except for the huge kickbacks they will be getting for passing it.

Any one know when the results will be in?

 

[Darwin333]

Don't know why you would be against this law.

Perhaps you could explain why you are for this bill?

 

[Darwin333]

So you think that people shouldn't be held liable for facilitation the breaking of laws?

So you don't believe in due process or our judicial system?

 

[Darwin333]

Just legalize mp3 downloads and pot smoking and 90% of the lefties would simply disapear back to their basements.

Do you even have a basic understanding of the law in question?

Can someone find him a really really short summary or something?

I do not see how anyone could possibly make even an unintelligent argument in support of this bill.

 

[Darwin333]

Oh man, I may have to say let this one ride

Also it appears that this bill may put Justin Bieber in jail for 5 years. Kind of compelling argument in favor of it as far as I can tell lol.

Seriously OP's article at the very least seems like an overblown "Call to Arms" and has less than a paragraph about what the actual bill entails. The version I've been reading comes from the House of Representatives, I don't think it's as bad as everyone is making it out to be. But I really don't feel up to finding/reading the Senate version for comparison either lol.

I think some of the generalizations it makes are misplaced or poorly thought out, but I see where it's coming from.

The emphasis given to 'domain names' sounds like it's the same problem with emphasizing IP addresses; just because one user on your WiFi does something illegal doesn't mean the guy who pays for the connection is liable necessarily. Same with this, just because some guy has a Geocities site with unlawful content doesn't mean the whole domain should be at risk, I don't think this bill really addresses that, or at least could be interpreted to make the whole domain liable. I think.

Further the terms of exactly 'what' determines whether a website is "infringing" or not is not even in the document, it simply references a number of articles from other documents, so for me it's currently unknown what all that entails. I understand the desire to be compliant with existing legislation but I think that's a very key part of this bill, I wish it was included.

Also the bill details what action the "Attorney General" can take against said websites, but I (at least not yet) haven't found the details for 'how' the AG is notified of these sites or what sort of process is in place to (hopefully) prevent frivolous abuse of the bill. Who can submit claims and what kind of 'filter' do they go through?

Also Section 201, which somehow is supposed to put Justin Bieber in jail, is pretty convoluted. But it sounds like it has provisions for relatively private viewing of, say, Netflix and Youtube and streaming music and the like. But I also think it's providing legislation against some guy using Pandora or Youtube to, say, DJ a party. Which is probably already against the ToS for the subscribers, but is now incorporating that into law as well.

Also I'm no expert but am I reading this correctly in that it only applies to foreign sites (foreign meaning the domains are not registered in the US)? It seems like the bill (again, the House bill at least) is targeting the likes of ThePirateBay and other foreign sites that are very difficult to deal with because of the discrepancies between foreign and domestic laws. So instead of attacking the source directly, the bill tries to use other means to instead cut ties to the source.

I do not believe it is provisioning for any retribution on domestic sites.

I think the bigger problem is the emphasis on this kind of legislature to pander to lobbyists and the fact that we even have to wade through it in the midst of bigger issues, but that's another story.

http://gizmodo.com/5860242/all-about-sopa-the-bill-thats-going-to-cripple-your-internet

http://gizmodo.com/5860449/the-internet+crippling-bill-might-get-slightly-less-terrible

A few pretty good articles on it.

 

[frostedflakes]

So you think that people shouldn't be held liable for facilitation the breaking of laws?

People can already be held liable, we have had a civil court system in place for hundreds of years to enforce copyrights. My beef with this and most other recent copyright legislation is that copyright owners are trying to pass the costs of enforcing their copyrights onto either the government/taxpayer and/or the ISPs. If somebody infringes on my copyright, patent, or whatever, it is *my* responsibility to take them to court and sue for damages. It is not the responsibility of the Justice Department or anyone else to protect my intellectual property. And it certainly should not be a criminal matter either, it is a civil matter between two parties (the copyright owner and the infringing party), there is no need to get federal prosecutors involved. I'm all for companies going after people who infringe on their copyrights, I just don't want tax dollars paying for it. In the end all SOPA and similar legislation really amounts to is corporate welfare for Viacom and other huge companies.

Also, getting rid of the safe harbor provision, which was arguably the only good thing to come out of DMCA, is a terrible idea as well IMO. Sites like YouTube that rely on user-generated content might not even exist today had the safe harbor provision that protected them from liability for copyrighted content uploaded by their users not been around. Obviously now YouTube/Google is large enough that it can protect itself from litigation, but back when YouTube was a small start-up, it and similar sites probably could have easily been crushed by litigation from the RIAA/MPAA and forced out of business. Getting rid of safe harbor could potentially discourage creativity and entrepreneurship on the web.

 

[Elias824]

So they are only blocking the Name from resolving on the ISP's DNS server right? Couldn't you just use a European or some other DNS server and get around all of the blocks? Whats keeping the pirate bay from just continuously changing their name to priatebay1.com priatebay2.com etc... Seems like this bill is just bunch of senators who really have no idea how to deal with this issue caving into a few lobbyists.

 

[Nebor]

The current system in place is too cumbersome and expensive to be used to shut down sites enabling illegal activities. Giving the executive branch the ability to circumvent the judicial and directly cut off the connections and funding is a good thing. More government power to enforce is good.

 

[Dankk]

I don't know what to say about this... other then I'd like to see who actually voted YES for this...

Here's a list of congressional supporters and sponsors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act#Supporters

Mostly rich old people who don't care about anyone but themselves.

 

[Darwin333]

The current system in place is too cumbersome and expensive to be used to shut down sites enabling illegal activities. Giving the executive branch the ability to circumvent the judicial and directly cut off the connections and funding is a good thing. More government power to enforce is good.

Serious question:

Why do you fight and risk life and limb for a country that you despise so much?

Do you just like playing with guns?

Maybe the male "companionship" away from the distractions of women?

What is it?

 

[wirednuts]

all they have to do is put one ad out on FOXNEWS that says its time to STOP the internet from hurting our children. flash a pic from a dateline episode with dude sayin "take a seat", then show osama bin laden harvesting pot plants, and finish with that short clip of an atomic bomb going off. STOP IT BEFORE ITS TOO LATE!

these bills will pass unanimously. and one day EYE will be the one telling my grandkids how the internet used to be like a 2nd universe, where anything could happen and it did. it was grand. "but grandpa, you actually used to go to google and just ask it where you wanted to go? but how do you even think about what that might be?"

 

[woolfe9999]

People can already be held liable, we have had a civil court system in place for hundreds of years to enforce copyrights. My beef with this and most other recent copyright legislation is that copyright owners are trying to pass the costs of enforcing their copyrights onto either the government/taxpayer and/or the ISPs. If somebody infringes on my copyright, patent, or whatever, it is *my* responsibility to take them to court and sue for damages. It is not the responsibility of the Justice Department or anyone else to protect my intellectual property. And it certainly should not be a criminal matter either, it is a civil matter between two parties (the copyright owner and the infringing party), there is no need to get federal prosecutors involved. I'm all for companies going after people who infringe on their copyrights, I just don't want tax dollars paying for it. In the end all SOPA and similar legislation really amounts to is corporate welfare for Viacom and other huge companies.

What would you do about foreign infringers? It is essentially impossible to pursue civil action against them. Without the ability to get a court order to block access to those sites, there is no remedy.

The SOPA does overreach that which is why I oppose it. I think it should be narrowed to cover foreign sites only. Domestic infringement can be handled by way of civil suits.

 

[Bateluer]

You guys that are supporting SOPA, you know it would immediately kill Twitter, Youtube, Anandtech Forums, Facebook, 90% of all personal blogs, and more, right? If you were to post a video of your dog doing something silly to Youtube, but happened to have a radio playing the background, that's infringement and punishable under this bill, should it become law. SOPA nearly nullifies Fair Use and makes criminals out of nearly every one. You really want to hand complete control of the Internet over to the MPAA and RIAA? The same people that sue single parents and dead people for millions, based on flimsy evidence, that they downloaded a couple MP3s? Are you insane?

I'm not sure when the vote on this bill is exactly, but when left and wing wing advocacy groups, blogs, open source projects, all social networks, etc stand up to oppose the bill, you'd better take notice.