Please defeat SOPA

D Tibbets · Post by **D Tibbets** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 7:32 am

GIThruster wrote: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.
......
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?
.........

Of course it wouldn't be misused.

http://digitaljournal.com/article/274415

And this required the effort of going through a due process legal system. How much more convenient if they do not need to expend nearly as much effort.

Dan Tibbets

TDPerk · Post by **TDPerk** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 10:51 am

What GIThruster does not understand, is the extent to which the process is punishment and how wide a net SOPA permits supposed rights holders to cast:

Scope of SOPA

The cost of litigation is so high and the bar in SOPA so low, that effectively SOPA gives institutions with a legal department that can crank out allegations the effective power to ban free speech.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 6:06 pm

D Tibbets wrote: Of course it wouldn't be misused.

http://digitaljournal.com/article/274415

That's not a case of misuse. Ms. Thomas was a test case for the anti-file sharing law and lost her case twice because she knew when she violated the law what she was doing. After the first loss, her lawyer argued for a retrial based upon a supposed error in the jury instructions, whereupon her penalties were increased a full order of magnitude upon her SECOND LOSS. This is common for people who lose the same trial twice, and is NOT an abuse of the law. The fine was then reduced to $54k whereupon the record labels ordered a third trial and had them mostly restored, but not to the level reported in your link.

You can see, this woman who certainly knew she was violating the law, was pursued to the fullest extent of the law, by those she had transgressed in order to make an example of her to those who would likewise steal from them. This is JUST AS IT SHOULD BE.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 6:17 pm

TDPerk wrote:The cost of litigation is so high and the bar in SOPA so low, that effectively SOPA gives institutions with a legal department that can crank out allegations the effective power to ban free speech.

This is precisely the nonsense I object to--hyperbolic but pithy bullshit, that others take at face value as if it were even possible.

Stealing music, video, movies or any other form of IP is not a form of "free speech; its a form of theft. There aren't going to be any "innocent" victims of this new law. It's going to punish a bunch of people whom are anything but innocent.

I think what's needed is most people complaining get their heads out of their asses and realize that if you're not a thief, you have nothing to fear from this law. If on the other hand, you justify your thievery based upon the notion that you're only stealing from the rich, you have something new to worry about.

None of this has anything to do with "free speech". Stealing music is NOT a form of free speech.

Betruger · Post by **Betruger** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 6:34 pm

Naive

TDPerk · Post by **TDPerk** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 6:45 pm

"Stealing music, video, movies or any other form of IP is not a form of "free speech; its a form of theft."

If that's all SOPA could penalize, I wouldn't object to it.

That's not all it does.

"that others take at face value as if it were even possible. "

What are you claiming, that million dollar fines for uploading to bittorrents is reasonable? That prosecutors over-reach so seldomly that the certainty it will be done is tolerable?

"you have nothing to fear from this law"

This law can be abused grotesquely, therefore it will, it places the burden of proof of being certain beforehand that one is not linking to people who link to people who link to stolen IP, such that it will have an unnacceptable chilling effect on internet discourse.

It should be voted down.

Stealing music is what SOPA is ostensibly about, but the mechanism delineated in it is too hamhanded, one sided, and fosters abuse.

Tell you what, if SOPA is modified to provide for million dollar minimum penalties against complainants for mistaken claims of association of an IP addy or person being associated with IP theft--with mistaken being found by a jury--then I'll go for it.

'Til then, because the process is so one sided, and the process is so expensive and prone to abuse, no way I'll accept it.

TDPerk · Post by **TDPerk** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 6:58 pm

GIThruster, you could try pointing out the text in SOPA that you feel prevents it's being abused in the way I feel it will be abused.

Y'know, if you actually have a point.

kcdodd · Post by **kcdodd** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 7:22 pm

This is precisely the nonsense I object to--hyperbolic but pithy bullshit, that others take at face value as if it were even possible.

How is it not possible. One does not even need a legal department! All I have to do is call your host and tell them you are putting stuff I own on your website and they will shut you down no questions asked! Why? Because if they don't they run the risk of becoming liable for ANYTHING you put on your website!

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 7:41 pm

kcdodd wrote:How is it not possible. One does not even need a legal department! All I have to do is call your host and tell them you are putting stuff I own on your website and they will shut you down no questions asked!

No. That is not what the law says. Those complaining do NOT have the ability to block web sites. Only DoJ has that ability. If it were as you describe, I would certainly be against this law as well.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 7:44 pm

D Tibbets wrote:
GIThruster wrote: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

Dan, the "legal action" that the IP owner can take is to take the offender to court and sue them. That is a "legal action". The blocking action can only be done by DoJ.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 7:50 pm

kcdodd wrote:All I have to do is call your host and tell them you are putting stuff I own on your website and they will shut you down no questions asked! Why? Because if they don't they run the risk of becoming liable for ANYTHING you put on your website!

If what you're implying is that web sites should not be responsible for what others place on them, I'm afraid I cannot agree. I think the law has spoken about this very clearly over the centuries in holding pawn shops accountable for selling items they have reason to suspect are stollen. Selling stollen goods is a felony that all pawn shops have to be aware of and accountable for. Same with web sites. YouTube does not get a pass, if it allows someone to post a pirated copy of The Hulk before it is released in theaters. Someone needs to be accountable.

Think of the ways what you're talking about could possibly occur in the real world. Say you're at YouTube and someone shoots you a note that you have a vid up of their copyrighted material. You take it down unless you have reasons to suspect the party is lying. Now under what circumstances would someone lie about such a thing, and under what sorts of conditions would you be so unable to tell whether the video was copyrighted? Almost all writing, vidographing, etc. is copyrighted in the moment it's created. What is usually at question is whether someone is making "fair use" of the material. When for instance, you quote a few paragraphs or even a couple pages of a book for use, and note the source, that is fair use. When you distribute photocopies of entire books in order to avoid paying for them, that is not fair use.

Likewise, when you use someone's creation to make money, that is generally NOT fair use. If you post a vid on YouTube and most of the vid is someone else's work which you have not modified as a parody, etc., you are attempting to gain a financial advantage from work that is not your own, and you should be prosecuted. This is what this law is all about and this is stuff YouTube ought to be accountable for.

kcdodd · Post by **kcdodd** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 8:29 pm

GIThruster wrote:
kcdodd wrote:How is it not possible. One does not even need a legal department! All I have to do is call your host and tell them you are putting stuff I own on your website and they will shut you down no questions asked!

No. That is not what the law says. Those complaining do NOT have the ability to block web sites. Only DoJ has that ability. If it were as you describe, I would certainly be against this law as well.

The DoJ would have the ability to force a site down. Technically they already had some ability to do this for US sites. The bill grants the DoJ authority to also go after 3rd parties so that it can try to shut down access to foreign sites, but will probably also be used domestically. This in itself seems to be really bad in it's expansion of government authority but not really the current point.

However, any provider who voluntarily shuts a site down or stops doing business with it, such as a fourth party payment center or advertising site, gets immunity from the liability they would otherwise assume. That is specified in section 104 of the bill. That is the key. The people you deal with are only bound by the contracts you make with them. There is very little burden to simply send your web host a form letter saying you have infringing material on your site. At this point whether you actually have something infringing on your site is irrelevant. From their perspective they had better be fairly sure you don't, because the bill gives them a get out of jail free card if they simply cut you off. Now, that is not even a court order yet. One could also file a court order to force those providers to shut you down within 7 days. At that point they don't have any choice but the stakes are also much higher which is spelled out is section 103.

kcdodd · Post by **kcdodd** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 8:34 pm

GIThruster wrote:[
Think of the ways what you're talking about could possibly occur in the real world. Say you're at YouTube and someone shoots you a note that you have a vid up of their copyrighted material. You take it down unless you have reasons to suspect the party is lying. Now under what circumstances would someone lie about such a thing, and under what sorts of conditions would you be so unable to tell whether the video was copyrighted? Almost all writing, vidographing, etc. is copyrighted in the moment it's created. What is usually at question is whether someone is making "fair use" of the material. When for instance, you quote a few paragraphs or even a couple pages of a book for use, and note the source, that is fair use. When you distribute photocopies of entire books in order to avoid paying for them, that is not fair use.

This happens all the time on you tube. People make phony DMCA requests to youtube ALL THE TIME on videos that for no other reason they don't agree with what is said in the videos. Those videos and accounts are suspended ALL THE TIME with little to no burden of proof! Youtube doesn't care if the requests are valid or not because they don't want to be sued! It's shut down and ask questions later. And now this is being codified into law!

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 8:47 pm

I believe copywrites should have no more protection than patents. If anything, patents should have more protection because they actually produce something USEFUL to society as opposed to merely entertaining.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 8:47 pm

I think one thing that is very important to remember is that the complaints about "censorship" and "freedom of speech" do not hold up when scrutinized because they are indeed red herrings or arguments of distraction. (You were right, I wrote "straw man" in haste when I was sleepy but note the inverse of a red herring is a straw man.)

The issue is not about free speech nor censorship. It's about the ways a law might fail to protect the innocent and punish the guilty. While there may be ways this law can go wrong, they seem awfully few compared to how many it can go right, and this is after all why we have judges, so laws don't need to be perfect.

I think the additional consequence that IP infringers, be they 2nd, 3rd or 4th parties, will now be accountable and so much more likely to shed any particular IP, is wholly a good thing.