Please defeat SOPA

[Betruger]

As if that were the only consequence of SOPA & co

[GIThruster]

Well what are the consequences? I've yet to see more than a straw man proposed in support of theft of IP.

How can we have a discussion of the subject without the details of the subject?

[kcdodd]

You are the one building the straw man saying those who oppose SOPA are in support of legalizing IP theft. Are you saying it is currently legal to steal IP? If we stop SOPA is IP theft then legal? Where is this argument based exactly? Seriously?

Here is some analysis.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201112 ... jail.shtml

This person makes the case of why Justin Bieber could be convicted of a felony under SOPA for his videos on youtube, but the problem is that this law is being written fairly broadly so anyone who knowingly facilitates the transmission of this stuff becomes liable. Even fourth parties such as advertisers on youtube could be liable. But of course we all know youtube, for instance, does not have the resources to truly investigate for themselves who really owns the right all the content in the tens of millions videos.

For instance, here:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201112 ... time.shtml

Merely linking to IP on a separate website uploaded by a separate person makes you liable to face felony charges based on whether that third person had rights to upload the content.

[GIThruster]

Lets see the law as it's being proposed rather than someone's analysis whom we don't have a reason to trust.

[KitemanSA]

You are the one building the straw man saying those who oppose SOPA are in support of legalizing IP theft. Are you saying it is currently legal to steal IP? If we stop SOPA is IP theft then legal? Where is this argument based exactly? Seriously?

Actually, he said supported the continuation of illegal theft.

In the physical world, there are pawn shops that fence stolen goods. the police often shut them down.

Your statement is that SOPA would be like allowing anyone to go into a pawn shop and declare there are stolen goods so it must be closed.

GIT's seems to be that since it is a good thing to shut down pawn shop based fencing operations, SOPA should be good.

My question is "does anyone have any REAL data? What does SOPA ACTUALLY say?

Anyone?

[GIThruster]

My question is "does anyone have any REAL data? What does SOPA ACTUALLY say?

Anyone?

That's where I'm at. Lets see the law as proposed before we make a knee-jerk reaction. There are too many people offering their opinions on this issue that don't offer whether they endorse support of IP in general.

There is no way to make a calling on this issue without access to the details, IMHO.

[kcdodd]

You don't seem to understand what a straw man argument is but I don't care. That's besides the point.

You seriously ask if any has any data? It was introduced in congress. You pretend like no-one knows what it actually says and people are just making stuff up.

Go to the library of congress website: http://thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas.php

Or Open Congress website: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3261/text

The editorials even quoted relevant passages for you.

btw SOPA stands for Stop Online Piracy Act.

[D Tibbets]

My 2 cents worth that is based on 1 cent of knowledge.
It seams that a consideration in the law may include arbitrary powers for companies. They may have preemptive authority to block web sites because "they are violating the law". No due process, only assertion by the aggrieved party. It is there word that there is a violation, and their absolute right to intervene. Unless there is oversight with very intense attention, any company could use this as an unfair advantage, and only their word determines the fairness, or appropriateness of the action.

A comparison is the anti - Gangster laws. Prosecutors used false statements as a basis for conviction. Gangsters were not convected for a crime, but for lying. Prosecutors reassured the public that this was a tool that would only be used with great discretion. Instead it it is now used to go after anybody for any reason. eg: Martha Stewart, President Clinton, and before you think I am being political, the same could be applied to Gingrich, or even to someone who didn't declare $ 20 gambling earnings on his tax return. 'Lets see, a 25% penalty and fine, will cost you $100. Oh , and by the way , you will also serve a 2 year prison term for lying to officials.'

Whether government or business, granting such indiscriminate authority is a slippery slope. And, governmental prosecutors still have to follow due process, the industry would not have this limitation, at least not up front. There may be an appeal process, but it would cost money and wouldn't compensate for lost revenue or legal costs. It may be that defending oneself, even if the accusations are false, costs more than it is worth (or more than be afforded), and benefits the accusers irregardless. This already exists in government, politics, and many regulatory organizations. why give it to businesses who have such an obvious financial bias? If I understand this provision it is not the same as a patent infringement or copyright claim where you at least have to go through a judge to get a temperary restraining order, and then justify your claim. That avenue already exists. Extending the process to international courts is reasonable, but not granting the privilege to the private companies.

Dan Tibbets

[Skipjack]

Also worth noting is that the record companies usually dont give a darn about the artists and they themselves have been accused of stealing songs to put them on compilation CDs.
They only get away with it, because they are big and can afford dragging out a lawsuit at infinitum. Giving people like that such powers as in the SOPA, is IMHO very dangerous and does nothing to ensure that the artists get their money.

[palladin9479]

No requirement that the allegation actually be true.

It's very very evil.

I can't imagine this could be true. It would mean that every commercial organization that had a competitor would find themselves closed down based upon bogus complaints. I think you'd need to be pretty naive to believe any law would allow/promote such a thing.

You need to take a step back and wonder whether you're being lied to. Seems obvious you are.

WTF? You seriously don't know what the law actually changes?

Currently if an IP holder suspects someone else is infringing upon their rights they have to go through a court system to get the offenders taken down. This law changes a few particulars of current law, namely it by-pass's the requirement for the legal system to get involved. Instead the IP holder can send a take down notice to the DNS registrar of the web hosting site with a threat and the web hosting company must de-list the site or face heavy penalties. Not only does this apply to domestic (USA based) websites, but to all worldwide websites period. A company can send a notice to an ISP demanding the ISP blackhole the DNS for a foreighn web hosting company's site. If the ISP or DNS provider refused they are then liable for the material on the foreign website.

Hosting companies are already liable for material posted anonymously on their sites, but as long as they can show they performed due diligence to police and remove offending material, they are not at fault should the IP holders sue. This prevents the MPAA and RIAA from attacking and taking down websites in the USA unless those websites aren't practicing due diligence and actively policing their site. Being as the MPAA and RIAA are unable to get these hosting companies shutdown, their instead trying to legislate the liability from the web hosting company to the local DNS service provider.

Take The Pirate Bay for example, a known site for infringing on IP. Now the MPAA and RIAA can't attack TPB directly as TPB is hosted on a foreign provider. Instead their lobbying for the rights to attack domestic DNS providers and having those sites blackholed, thus restricting access to those sites for anyone using that particular DNS provider. When taken to it's logical conclusion, with a large enough legal staff they could get a site blocked from every DNS provider in the USA, effectively censuring it.

Now this could be biddable if there was some sort of court system or independent investigation authority to determine if a particular site had unauthorized material on it. But the law as written goes out of its way to stipulate that the company involved doesn't need any authority to send notices or initiate legal action against DNS registrars. It use's such broad terminology and definitions that any material that might be stolen, and it doesn't even need to belong to the offended company, that might of existed on that site, or any link to any material, or any information that describes how to get to the offending material, is grounds for liability. And the liable entity is the DNS registrar regardless of the host nation of the website.

That is how broad and evil this legislation is. It effectively removed net neutrality and free speech on the internet for anyone living in the USA. Thank god I'm working overseas.

[palladin9479]

An addendum to my above post. I was focusing on the DNS registrar's because that is the most effective way to censure a foreign site. The law doesn't actually state DNS registrars, it says that any entity assisting in the access, transmission or dissemination of copyrighted material is liable and that private owners have the legal rights to shut them down.

If someone sends you a link to a youtube video in an email, you then have committed a felony. The email hosting company has committed a felony, your ISP has committed a felony, their DNS registrar has committed a felony, youtube's ISP has committed a felony and youtube themselves has committed a felony.

Now lets put on our tin foil hats for a moment and see how a private company can use this to punish people. If I was a rather immoral self-interested company (basically all of them), I could plant copyrighted material on a website, then demand their registrar and ISP take down and disconnect that site. The ISP and DNS registrar would then be required to disconnect the site, potentially costing them millions in revenue or face both civil and criminal action.

Powers like this could easily be abused and should never be given to private entity's who are answerable to no one.

[GIThruster]

Honestly, I'm reading the bill and don't see a problem. It gives the IP owner the right to take legal action against those making illegal use of their IP, and gives the DoJ the authority to demand that search engines, social networking sites and domain name services block access to the targeted site. It does not give this ability to anyone who wants it, it does not give this ability to any and every IP owner. It gives the ability to block to DoJ alone.

Y'all are full of shit writing this nonsense above in support of thievery and should be ashamed of yourselves.

[Helius]

Honestly, I'm reading the bill and don't see a problem. It gives the IP owner the right to take legal action against those making illegal use of their IP, and gives the DoJ the authority to demand that search engines, social networking sites and domain name services block access to the targeted site. It does not give this ability to anyone who wants it, it does not give this ability to any and every IP owner. It gives the ability to block to DoJ alone.

Y'all are full of shit writing this nonsense above in support of thievery and should be ashamed of yourselves.

There's the other side of the coin where IP is forever delayed from falling into the public domain. The Public domain has no moneyed protection, and much worthwhile intellectual value is delayed and held for the profit of those other than the creators and from those whom can build upon it.

Even worse, that which is held in the public domain, can come back out. An example would be a creative entity writing a play based on that which should be in the public domain, such as Hawthorn's Pocahontas, would be fraught with legal action, regardless of it supposedly being in the public Domain.

So long as there is enough money in it, IP will continue to be extended beyond all reasonable time frames and not fall under the public domain as it should. We end up with a creative minefield, that stifles creation, not enhances it.

I think it is hilarious that we reached the ridiculous point as it stands now. For Heaven's sake.... Someone still "owns" Happy Birthday. I think it is ridiculous that nearly 50 year old Beatle's songs are STILL not in the public domain. Stephen Foster's songs were in the public domain a lot faster than the Beatles songs ever will be. At what point is it that the IP 'holders' cat be seen as stealing from the public domain?

[GIThruster]

I will certainly grant that the above is true. However, my experiences are all on the other end of the spectrum and I suspect that's where the vast bulk of the troubles are.

A friend of the family once pressed me very hard to accept as a gift, his "collection" of music. It's a portable drive about a terabyte I think. He said all I need is bring him a drive and he'll copy it for me, all many thousands of songs from every type of music. Truly, it was an amazing collection of stollen property. The guy who was pressing me to likewise steal all these songs is a police officer. he got them from a professional DJ. Think about the fact that this DJ is using stollen music to earn a living, and this cop had no qualms with this.

People don't think about the consequences of stealing IP like music, movies, trademarks, etc. We all pay more for video games, admission to theaters, DVD's, BluRay, etc. because of the thieves amongst us. Most of what gets streamed online is stollen property and if the way to stop this is to punish those who make it available on their web sites, then that's what needs to happen. It's ridiculous to think DoJ is going to go after individual citizens who looked at a single piece of stollen IP by mistake. They're going to go after businesses that make their money through theft, and after habitual thieves. They would never bring a case against a private citizen for a single infraction. Any judge would just laugh at that and throw the case out, so why waste time with such ridiculous scenarios in defense of theft?

It looks like a good piece of legislation to me. I didn't read the entire thing, but it obviously goes on to treat with theft from overseas too. Trademark copycats, etc. I say more power to them if they think they can make the Chinese responsible for making knockoff Gap jeans, Nike sneakers, Bulova watches and Guild guitars. Better still if they find a way to hold their feet to the fire for stealing the recipe for Terphenol-D.

[D Tibbets]

Honestly, I'm reading the bill and don't see a problem. It gives the IP owner the right to take legal action against those making illegal use of their IP, and gives the DoJ the authority to demand that search engines, social networking sites and domain name services block access to the targeted site. It does not give this ability to anyone who wants it, it does not give this ability to any and every IP owner. It gives the ability to block to DoJ alone.

Y'all are full of shit writing this nonsense above in support of thievery and should be ashamed of yourselves.

The key is the second sentence. You don't say it gives them the right or duty to report a claim, it gives them the right to take action. They are their own law. The DOJ is only acting as the executioner, not as the adjudicator.

Dan Tibbets