Internet Censorship Bill
-
IBCoupe
- Posts: 7534
- Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 11:51 am
- Car: '08 Nissan Altima Coupe 3.5SE
'19 Infiniti QX50 FWD
'17 BMW 330e iPerformance - Location: Orange County, CA
Re: Internet Censorship Bill
I get that, but that's what I'm trying to explore - aside from the parts of the legislation that appear to have trouble with due process (i.e. the parts of the law that won't pass legal muster), what is it we don't like?
-
IBCoupe
- Posts: 7534
- Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 11:51 am
- Car: '08 Nissan Altima Coupe 3.5SE
'19 Infiniti QX50 FWD
'17 BMW 330e iPerformance - Location: Orange County, CA
Re: Internet Censorship Bill
Totally serious. Aside from the due-process stuff (take-down without a hearing), what's the impact on free-speech that you don't like?
I totally get that the interblags get apoplectic whenever any law is passed that mentions the word "Internet," but I'm hoping there's some serious qualm with the law beyond it. Is there? What about what it's trying to enforce (forget how it's trying to enforce it, for a moment) do you not like?
I totally get that the interblags get apoplectic whenever any law is passed that mentions the word "Internet," but I'm hoping there's some serious qualm with the law beyond it. Is there? What about what it's trying to enforce (forget how it's trying to enforce it, for a moment) do you not like?
-
Hijacker
- Posts: 14373
- Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 4:57 am
- Car: '92 240sx Convertible
'94 F-150 - Location: Fredericksburg, VA
Re: Internet Censorship Bill
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news ... ership.ars
Good article on long term ramifications of worrying about short term gains via "piracy crack down"
IB, what people are moat upset is that the legislation is unneeded. While I agree that piracy is a problem, draconian crackdowns are counter productive. Especially when they have the ability to affect people who are operating legally under the law.
I've been watching video game publishers slowly push their customers into the ground for years with restrictive DRM that simply punishes paying customers while cracked copies circulate the internet and give a wholey better experience without the extra layer of crap caked on to "stop piracy".
SOPA gives an inordinate amount of power to rights holders all for the sake of selling a few extra tickets at the theater. It's just a serious slap in the face because it's so easy to see who lobbied to have these bills drafted
Good article on long term ramifications of worrying about short term gains via "piracy crack down"
IB, what people are moat upset is that the legislation is unneeded. While I agree that piracy is a problem, draconian crackdowns are counter productive. Especially when they have the ability to affect people who are operating legally under the law.
I've been watching video game publishers slowly push their customers into the ground for years with restrictive DRM that simply punishes paying customers while cracked copies circulate the internet and give a wholey better experience without the extra layer of crap caked on to "stop piracy".
SOPA gives an inordinate amount of power to rights holders all for the sake of selling a few extra tickets at the theater. It's just a serious slap in the face because it's so easy to see who lobbied to have these bills drafted
-
IBCoupe
- Posts: 7534
- Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 11:51 am
- Car: '08 Nissan Altima Coupe 3.5SE
'19 Infiniti QX50 FWD
'17 BMW 330e iPerformance - Location: Orange County, CA
Re: Internet Censorship Bill
I'm not so sure that it does. I'll try to lay out the gist of the law's text, now that I've actually found it (which, by the way, can be found here: Stop Online Piracy Act of 2011, H.R. 3261, 112th Congress). I'll try to skip the boring, most unexciting stuff for you, but if you think I'm leaving key stuff out, the link is right there for you.
First, let's look at Title I, where most of the oomph is added.
§ 102(a) identifies who's going to be targetted, and there are three requirments:
§ 102(c)(2) lists the people who would be implicated, in order to effectuate an order granted by a Court, when it is brought by the Attorney General:
§ 102(c)(4)(C) identifies an affirmative defense that any of those parties may assert: lack of technical ability to comply with some or all of the order.
§ 102(c)(5) creates two other defenses:
§ 103(a)(1) is notable in that it doesn't say "foreign." Any website that is targeted towards American users is subject to the private civil action provisions if:
§ 103(b)(1): Same powers as AG against Payment Network Providers, but see § 103(b)(5).
§ 103(b)(2): Same powers as AG against advertisers, but see § 103(b)(5).
§ 103(b)(5)(A): PNP's and Advertisers can get a counter-notification from the IP-holder. If the website operator (i) signs a writing that (ii) declares intent to accept US jurisdiction, and (iii) under penalty of perjury declares a good-faith belief that it does not meet the criteria, and (iv) supplies contact information for the website operator.
§ 103(c): If there's a counter-notification, the IP-holder may proceed directly against the alleged infringer (or infringement facilitator), and the Court may grant a cease & desist injunction against the website itself.
There's a number of other sections in Title I, but they don't really seem to be pertinent to this conversation:
It seems like the law really only facilitates the harm created by foreign counterfeit/infringement/etc. operations online by preventing them from being able to effectively operate in the United States. It also only gives IP-Holders the ability to go after the financial support for the people stealing from them, and doesn't give them the ability to go after a website's ISP or its Search Engine hits. And I imagine there's a pretty straightforward reason why the AG's powers are limited to matters involving foreign websites: they already have free reign over domestic websites. And, finally, they probably wouldn't have much recourse over Greg (even if Learned'd is counted) because his website doesn't exist to traffick copyrighted works, and it doesn't appear to have an inordinate amount of copyrighted works on it.
First, let's look at Title I, where most of the oomph is added.
§ 102(a) identifies who's going to be targetted, and there are three requirments:
- § 102(a)(1): It has to be a foreign website (or a portion of a foreign website) directed at the United States, and used by US users.
§ 102(a)(2): The owner of the website is doing or facilitating* a list of things that are already federal crimes:- 18 U.S.C. § 2318: Trafficking in Counterfeit Labels
18 U.S.C. § 2319: Copyright Infringement
18 U.S.C. § 2319B: Unauthorized Recording of Movies in Movie Theaters
18 U.S.C. § 2320: Trafficking in Counterfeit Goods
18 U.S.C. § 1831: Economic Espionage
18 U.S.C. § 1832: Theft of Trade Secrets
- 18 U.S.C. § 2318: Trafficking in Counterfeit Labels
- Temporary Restraining Order,
Preliminary Injunction, or
Injunction
§ 102(c)(2) lists the people who would be implicated, in order to effectuate an order granted by a Court, when it is brought by the Attorney General:
- § 102(c)(2)(A): An ISP can issue the Court order, on behalf of the AG, and then they must tell the Court that they've done it. Once they've done it, they must take "technically feasible and reasonable" measures to prevent access to the foreign website from American users. They must do so as quickly as possible, but at minimum within 5 days. An ISP can't be required to do any other modification to its server, network, etc., and it can't be required to take any action against a domain name that is resolved by someone else's DNS.
§ 102(c)(2)(B): If a Search Engine receives a court order, it must take down links to the foreign website within five days.
§ 102(c)(2)(C): Payment Network Providers shall take steps to prevent Americans from sending payments to the foreign website (or relevant portion), within 5 days of receiving a court order.
§ 102(c)(2)(D): Advertisers must stop putting ads on the infringing website/portion, must stop advertising for the infringing website/portion, and must stop taking money from the infringing website/portion within 5 days of receiving a court order.
§ 102(c)(4)(C) identifies an affirmative defense that any of those parties may assert: lack of technical ability to comply with some or all of the order.
§ 102(c)(5) creates two other defenses:
- - Immunity because I'm trying to comply but my customers are circumventing my restrictions.
- Immunity because I can't seem to stop the traffic/ads/payments, even though I'm putting in a good faith effort.
§ 103(a)(1) is notable in that it doesn't say "foreign." Any website that is targeted towards American users is subject to the private civil action provisions if:
- § 103(a)(1)(B)(i): The website exists primarily to engage in or facilitate:
- 17 U.S.C. 501: Copyright Infringement
17 U.S.C. 1201: Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems
(A number of provisions): Violations of Trademark Law (Counterfeit goods)
- 17 U.S.C. 501: Copyright Infringement
§ 103(b)(1): Same powers as AG against Payment Network Providers, but see § 103(b)(5).
§ 103(b)(2): Same powers as AG against advertisers, but see § 103(b)(5).
§ 103(b)(5)(A): PNP's and Advertisers can get a counter-notification from the IP-holder. If the website operator (i) signs a writing that (ii) declares intent to accept US jurisdiction, and (iii) under penalty of perjury declares a good-faith belief that it does not meet the criteria, and (iv) supplies contact information for the website operator.
§ 103(c): If there's a counter-notification, the IP-holder may proceed directly against the alleged infringer (or infringement facilitator), and the Court may grant a cease & desist injunction against the website itself.
There's a number of other sections in Title I, but they don't really seem to be pertinent to this conversation:
- § 104: IMMUNITY FOR TAKING VOLUNTARY ACTION AGAINST SITES DEDICATED TO THEFT OF U.S. PROPERTY
§ 105: IMMUNITY FOR TAKING VOLUNTARY ACTION AGAINST SITES THAT ENDANGER PUBLIC HEALTH- This one is probably related to protecting folks who take legal action against suspected dealers in counterfeit prescription drugs, but I haven't read it yet.
§ 107: DENYING U.S. CAPITAL TO NOTORIOUS FOREIGN INFRINGERS
- § 201: STREAMING OF COPYRIGHTED WORKS IN VIOLATION OF CRIMINAL LAW
- Makes it a federal crime to stream copyrighted material for financial gain.
Makes it a federal crime to stream more than $1000 worth of copyrighted material over the course of any 6-month period.
- Makes it a federal crime to traffick in counterfeit goods (mostly drugs, but not necessarily) that cause serious bodily harm or death.
Makes it further a federal crime to traffick in counterfeit military goods if they cause (I) serious bodily harm/death, (II) disclosure of classified information, (III) impairment of combat operations.
§ 204: AMENDMENTS TO SENTENCING GUIDELINES
§ 205: PROTECTING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS ABROAD- Every US Embassy gets an IP Attache assigned to it.
- Makes it a federal crime to stream copyrighted material for financial gain.
It seems like the law really only facilitates the harm created by foreign counterfeit/infringement/etc. operations online by preventing them from being able to effectively operate in the United States. It also only gives IP-Holders the ability to go after the financial support for the people stealing from them, and doesn't give them the ability to go after a website's ISP or its Search Engine hits. And I imagine there's a pretty straightforward reason why the AG's powers are limited to matters involving foreign websites: they already have free reign over domestic websites. And, finally, they probably wouldn't have much recourse over Greg (even if Learned'd is counted) because his website doesn't exist to traffick copyrighted works, and it doesn't appear to have an inordinate amount of copyrighted works on it.