SOPA Dies

[IBCoupe]

Also, found my write-up: internet-censorship-bill-t546040-30.htm ... y#p6231411

[stebo0728]

Even better (validity unconfirmed)

[IBCoupe]

Failing to credit does not a copyright infringement make. The worst part of this law has been that it has created an opportunity for people to ramble on about things they don't understand.

[bigbadberry3]

Yay!! Khanacademy reference.

[the a3k]

My friends email to Howard Gantman (VP of the MPAA - [email protected] )

Dear Sir,

I am responding to the letter that you wrote concerning the recent blackouts by tech giants.

How dare you? How dare you call blacking out a website or posting a banner on a website an abuse of power?
Abuse of power, you mean like giving ABSOLUTE power to judicial courts (and therefore the Entertainment Industry which BUYS them) the power to shut down a website, force a website not to do business with another, or force censorship on the American Public?

You, and your cronies, want to claim that piracy is costing the American Public millions in revenue, and thousands of jobs from the leading job creator in the country? Where do you get your information from? A quick Google search will show the top 10 job creating industries in 2011. Somehow, and I know this may come as a shock to you, the Entertainment Industry fails to make the list. Another point being, we've been in a recession for a few years now, and the unemployment figures never get any better, my question is: where are these jobs you people are magically creating? Get with the program.

Laws like SOPA were written by lobbyists whose sole interest is stealing more money from the American taxpayer. You people spent over $90 million dollars writing this law by itself. Where do you get the gall to think that you can buy legislation and vilify anyone who has the "nerve" to stand up to something that will take away his/her rights and freedoms?

If SOPA and PIPA pass, Piracy will not go away. It is insane to think that people will not find a way to get around these laws. All the passage of these laws will do is create the world's second greatest Internet censorship: being outdone only by China.

I know you will probably not read this, and even if you do, you will not agree, because you are paid good money to have your mind made up for you by a corporation (by the way, I hope you are very proud of yourself for having zero freewill) and you will probably not respond.

Either way, the voices of people who don't have the money to buy a law STILL NEED TO BE HEARD.

Thanks and have a great life

[BusyBadger]

Failing to credit does not a copyright infringement make.

Perhaps not, but that doesn't mean it's still not a © violation either. Consequently, simply citing and/or crediting a source doesn't automatically relieve someone of the burden of following procedure and obtaining the proper © releases and permissions.

But let's suppose SOPA were already in place...

Congressman Faux-tard Lamar could currently be in violation, provided the site was outside the US. The vagueries of the language in SOPA makes actual proof far less important than suspicion. His website could be blocked and the thing is that while Lamar might be guilty, any ISP that the offending image travels through shares in the guilt as SOPA asserts that the provider is responsible for policing all of their content. I suppose if I get pulled over for speeding the DoT should get in trouble because I was using their road.

Three more words the pro-SOPA crowd - deep packet inspection. If you liked the Bush era wiretaps you're going to love deep packet inspection, sounds a lot like an exam men have when they turn 50, and in essence I suppose it's the digital equivalent - for everyone.

SOPA is too far reaching, too vague and too prone to abuse as it stands now. There are so many bad what-if scenarios that sacrifice to much privacy and freedom with very little potential for payoff (seems like I heard that during the Bush era wiretaps too).

Copyright violations, IP theft and digital piracy are still going to occur. SOPA is just something to make the MPAA and RIAA feel all warm & fuzzy while giving them a chance to line the pockets of the lawmakers in DC for services rendered and as a deposit for future services.

[AZhitman]

As part of my continuous and ongoing education on all things web-related, I follow the discussions of some of the brightest minds and most competent people in the industry. I'm a ravenous reader, and spend a couple hours a day staying abreast of recent developments, new technologies, and the evolution of the online community. I have yet to run across one knowledgeable person who supports SOPA.

[BusyBadger]

I have yet to run across one knowledgeable person who supports SOPA.

I've yet to see any big name IT types support SOPA in any way.

And I'm certainly tired of seeing comments in articles I read basically stating that being opposed to SOPA equates to supporting piracy & theft. It's akin to opposing gun control and being labeled pro-murder.

[krash]

I'm glad you said that, because thats almost a perfect analogy.

(murder = piracy)
If someone buys a gun or bullets from a gun shop, and then kills someone with it, that shop can now be shut down because it "facilitated" the act of that murder.

Thats how I understand it.

Also, Khanacademy is awesome.

[AZhitman]

Eh, having read the text of SOPA, I couldn't see anything terribly wrong with it.

...which is why you should probably stick to your chosen field of study.

[AZhitman]

Problems with SOPA:

Allows takedown/block notices of entire sites based on content ACCUSED of being a violation of copyright, even if site discloses that it is not responsible for user-based content submissions (such as comments or sites where user-based content is the majority of all content). Does not require proof of violation -- just the court order.

Does not allow for sites to have the option of self-censoring content except before the fact -- thus all sites would have to be heavily moderated.

Realistically threatens the sanctity of parody as protected speech.

Would circumvent standard civil and legal due process (innocent until proven guilty) and put those organizations with the most money to throw at the system the power to control any content they desired.

All correct.

Also, it opens up opportunities for misuse of the law in cases of competition. I can, as a member of, or "esteemed contributor" to a competitor's site, submit content that violates copyright or trademark, then surreptitiously report said content and demand a takedown.

While the legal process plods along, that competitor loses traffic and revenue, possibly (and likely) permanently. See, the CPM and CPC models used by Google and others don't allow for "yeah, but" or "allow me to explain". Pageviews drop, metrics are reported, changes are made, and all of a sudden, your revenue is gone. Past performance is a strong predictor of future performance, so potential *new* clients move along when they sort by pageviews / clicks. Concurrently, rankings plummet (due to a precipitous drop in activity which indicates a perceived lack of site authority), and a position that takes years to conquer can be lost in an instant.

MPAA chairman Chris Dodd called the protests over SOPA "an abuse of power" as well as "dangerous and troubling". Let's think about that for a moment. The MPAA or RIAA complaining about "an abuse of power"? Really? Pots and kettles abound.

Rupert Murdoch, not surprisingly, has been incredibly vocal in support of SOPA in its as-written state, and has been bashing opponents of the bill with pathetically uninformed blather. If he's so smart, perhaps he'd like to explain to us how SOPA and PIPA would (or could) even work? Hell, I'm a relative amateur, and I know how to circumvent them easily.

I wouldn't expect our Resident Contrarian in this thread to understand such matters, but I *would* expect that he not spout off about topics he knows little about.

“[This bill is a] blunderbuss rather than a narrowly tailored response, and its stiff penalties would significantly endanger legitimate websites and services. It would undermine the openness and free exchange of information at the heart of the Internet. And it would violate the First Amendment.”

– Larry Tribe, First Amendment scholar at Harvard

[IBCoupe]

The vagueries of the language in SOPA makes actual proof far less important than suspicion.

How so? What language is too vague? What language gives rise to the belief that "proof" is not going to be necessary for anything? Where has the proposed law lessened the burdens on a party seeking a Court order? You all seem to assume things that aren't supported by the text of the law, or by our existing legal structure, and I have to wonder if you're thinking for yourselves or just parroting things you've heard others say.

Three more words the pro-SOPA crowd - deep packet inspection. If you liked the Bush era wiretaps you're going to love deep packet inspection, sounds a lot like an exam men have when they turn 50, and in essence I suppose it's the digital equivalent - for everyone.

What does that have to do with SOPA?

If someone buys a gun or bullets from a gun shop, and then kills someone with it, that shop can now be shut down because it "facilitated" the act of that murder.

It's really not that great an analogy. In this case, it's more like the publisher of a book or a magazine being held responsible for the book or article they chose to publish, even though the folks who did the direct infringing were merely contributors to it. You act like Wikipedia's there as an exchange of ideas when it's really a publisher of information. The way it gathers and publishes information may be novel, but when many of its articles are plainly lifted from the Encyclopedia Britannica, it's hardly inappropriate to hold Wikipedia accountable for the act of some well-intentioned thief to whom Wikipedia afforded its loudspeaker.

And a single instance of infringement isn't enough to earn enforcement. Please, read my write-up. If I have to, I'll re-post it in this thread.

...which is why you should probably stick to your chosen field of study.

Nice. Maybe I'll try that when you actually attempt to make a real argument against the bill by, oh, I don't know, pointing to some part of the thing.

I can, as a member of, or "esteemed contributor" to a competitor's site, submit content that violates copyright or trademark, then surreptitiously report said content and demand a takedown.

That exists with anything. I can release rats into my competitor's restaurant, too, and call the city health inspector. Does that mean city health codes are bad?

“[This bill is a] blunderbuss rather than a narrowly tailored response, and its stiff penalties would significantly endanger legitimate websites and services. It would undermine the openness and free exchange of information at the heart of the Internet. And it would violate the First Amendment.”

– Larry Tribe, First Amendment scholar at Harvard

While Lawrence Tribe and I typically come to the same conclusion on matters of Constitutional interpretation (See, e.g., Patients Protection & Affordable Care Act; the "Privileges and Immunities" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment), I simply don't see the First Amendment implications here any more than I see First Amendment implications in the existing law regarding intellectual property. If you have a link, rather than just the sound byte, Greg, I'd love to read more of why Professor Tribe came to that conclusion. Unlike too many of SOPA's critics, I'm pretty sure he'll explain himself with citations to the portions of the law.

[stebo0728]

IB - Watch the Khan Academy video I posted, if you still are ok with the bill after watching that, I think I'm going to be seriously concerned as to the nature of your career. I think we're all too busy/lazy to post the language that bothers us, but the video runs it down beautifully.

[IBCoupe]

Nevermind, Greg, I found it. And I found where I can agree that the law needs to be altered. Professor Tribe writes:

Under a notice-and-termination procedure, the plaintiff notifies an online advertiser or
payment processor (such as a credit card processor) of an allegedly infringing site. The
advertiser or payment processor must take action to cease providing service to that site within
five days.
The bill also provides that the online advertiser or payment processor is required to alert
the allegedly infringing site of the notice in “timely” fashion. The site is then permitted to send a
counter-notice to the online advertiser or payment processor, but the bill does not require the
advertiser or payment processor to restore service.

(Emphasis mine). That's the fatal flaw. I've come around now: that part of Section 103 needs to be changed; upon the filing of a counter-claim with advertisers and payment processors, a reciprocal requirement of the restoration of service should follow. As a matter of prudency, we should probably also mirror the language protecting those entities from liability arising from the restoration of service, too.

And it appears, from reading much of Professor Tribe's letter, that if that is fixed, much of his complaint is disarmed. I haven't finished reading all 23 pages, but it's time to get to class. Here's the full letter for anybody who'd like to take on the task:
http://www.net-coalition.com/wp-content ... 6-11-1.pdf

[stebo0728]

I dont know when the MPAA, and SAG, and the other major b*tchers about piracy are going to learn, that you cant stay ahead of piracy with an iron hand, you have to passively dissuade them. I'm not defending piracy, I'm stating that any attempt to irradicate it via law, or by security measures, is doomed to failure. Instead, the proper, and successful approach is passive aggression. Netflix, Hulu, Pandora, Spotify, Steam, they've all made MAJOR dents in piracy in their industries. People are always going to pirate, the word itself has origins far beyond the digital age. Its part of humanity, a part that is undesirable by anyone who respects property rights, but its a part of humanity none the less. Is it a crime, do you punish crime? Yes to both, but using punishment as your main frontal attack wont work. When you catch folks, punish them to be sure, but nip at the whole reason they are doing it, and you go much further down the road to stopping it.

Setting aside freedom and due process, as this egregious pair of legislation seeks to do, is NOT the answer.

[stebo0728]

Nevermind, Greg, I found it. And I found where I can agree that the law needs to be altered. Professor Tribe writes:

Under a notice-and-termination procedure, the plaintiff notifies an online advertiser or
payment processor (such as a credit card processor) of an allegedly infringing site. The
advertiser or payment processor must take action to cease providing service to that site within
five days.
The bill also provides that the online advertiser or payment processor is required to alert
the allegedly infringing site of the notice in “timely” fashion. The site is then permitted to send a
counter-notice to the online advertiser or payment processor, but the bill does not require the
advertiser or payment processor to restore service.

(Emphasis mine). That's the fatal flaw. I've come around now: that part of Section 103 needs to be changed; upon the filing of a counter-claim with advertisers and payment processors, a reciprocal requirement of the restoration of service should follow. As a matter of prudency, we should probably also mirror the language protecting those entities from liability arising from the restoration of service, too.

You're getting there, but theres more to the problem. If services are disurpted and business is lost due to incorrect information, under the current bill, the offending entity cant be sued. They are protected by saying "oh well I thought they were ripping me off". Reciprocal suits need to be back on the table.

But even more nasty is the fact that the actions can be taken BEFORE due process is completed. A site can be shut down, and subsequently lose their shirt, all before a judge hears the first argument from the defense.

[IBCoupe]

If services are disurpted and business is lost due to incorrect information, under the current bill, the offending entity cant be sued.

Not necessarily, depending on whom you mean by "offending entity." The law provides immunity to "a service provider, payment network provider, Internet advertising service, advertiser, Internet search engine, domain name registry, or domain name registrar." It does not provide immunity from counter-suit against the IP-holder. It creates an incentive to cooperate with the notification from the IP-holder.

And I get that bit about immunity, which is why I suggested that, if we're amending the law anyways, that a reciprocal grant of immunity for actions pursuant to a counter-notification from the website operator. That way, we have a neutral set of incentives.

[themadscientist]

Hey Obama, remember that loan that the Hollywood powerbrokers gave you? They are here to collect.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-573 ... s-support/

Nikki Finke, one of the most tuned-in reporters covering Hollywood, wrote yesterday "I've learned that Hollywood studio chiefs individually and as a group are drawing a line in the sand on the piracy issue with the Obama re-election campaign and refusing to give any more donations."

[bigbadberry3]

So does Megauploads being shut down mean that regardless of SOPA passing, government is going to shut everybody down anyways?

[allenms240]

Two words.
Slippery slope.

[AZhitman]

That exists with anything. I can release rats into my competitor's restaurant, too, and call the city health inspector. Does that mean city health codes are bad?

It's really not that great an analogy.

You did the hard work for me.

There's a huge difference. You don't get it.

Web stuff is, unlike "releasing rats", anonymous and virtually free of threat. Additionally, it's permanent and irreparable damage (unlike a bad inspection), and there's no recourse.

Besides, knowing several health inspectors (DHS, remember), they'd laugh if they found non-native, obviously-planted rats in a restaurant. It doesn't take a seasoned inspector to explain that, so let's steer clear of stuff you saw on Punk'd.

EDIT - Whoops. If I'd read the rest of the posts, I wouldn't have been searching for the good Prof's discussion when you'd already located it. Damn you and your grubby keyboard.

[IBCoupe]

Permanent and irreparable? Convince me.

[AZhitman]

You don't own a website. I wouldn't expect you to know, nor am I up for trying to condense 10+ years of knowledge and observations into a response.

As such, you can take my word, or keep thinking I'm wrong - no matter.

[IBCoupe]

What makes it permanent and irreparable? It takes 10 years of knowledge to understand that? Really?

[RobPaulson]

Eh, having read the text of SOPA, I couldn't see anything terribly wrong with it.

[stebo0728]

The battle is far from over folks. Now we have to ensure our congressman understand that they are under no circumstances to ratify the ACTA treaty. This treaty makes SOPA look like a night in the drunk tank.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Count ... _Agreement

[AZhitman]

What makes it permanent and irreparable? It takes 10 years of knowledge to understand that? Really?

Not necessarily.

Then again, there's a lot of failed web properties out there whose owners DIDN'T learn how / why it happens.

The permanence has a lot to do with the impersonal nature of how Google does business. The irreparability has a lot to do with the mechanism and algorithms by which sites gain (and maintain) ranking in SERPs.

Your incredulous response was, not surprisingly, quite douchey, btw. Yes, really.

[IBCoupe]

So, if the law is changed, Greg, to include a comparable requirement for reinstatement pursuant to a counter-notification described in SOPA, is it still "permanent" and "irreparable?" Or was there some other mechanism in the law (aside from the incentives to cooperate with an IP-holder's request and lack of counterbalancing incentive to cooperate with the good-faith objection of a webuser) that makes it that way?

I've been able to guess at what you're talking about, and it's taken me far less than 10 years to sort out. Douchey as my response might have been, Greg, it's apparently quite fair given how transparent your attempt at a cop-out was.

[AZhitman]

So, if the law is changed, Greg, to include a comparable requirement for reinstatement pursuant to a counter-notification described in SOPA, is it still "permanent" and "irreparable?"

So, now the government is going to be in charge of telling Google and Bing what to do? Are they going to get into controlling search engines? I'm guessing that'll take another new department.

Why do you have such a hardon for this when you clearly don't comprehend the eventualities and ramifications?

Do you like the idea of this site being taken down because a user posts up a video of their car with a Metallica song (used w/o their consent) as the background music?

I'm sure you'll call that "overreacting", but I'm not on the side of the crybabies who can't figure out how to make their content safe and secure (and profitable) in the 21st century.

If you haven't learned by now that I don't "cop-out", ever, then you haven't been paying attention.

...and since your deeply-ingrained distrust of anyone who claims to know more about you on any given subject is so enormously overwhelming, I give you one of the most highly-regarded experts' (out of the 100+ I follow) explanation and position on the matter:

http://marketingland.com/what-all-marke ... -sopa-1677

[IBCoupe]

So, now the government is going to be in charge of telling Google and Bing what to do? Are they going to get into controlling search engines? I'm guessing that'll take another new department.

No, the departments we have pretty well cover it, Greg: the Justice Department, as well as civil and criminal courts.

Why do you have such a hardon for this when you clearly don't comprehend the eventualities and ramifications?

What is it I don't understand?

Do you like the idea of this site being taken down because a user posts up a video of their car with a Metallica song (used w/o their consent) as the background music?

Which part of the law do you think allows that?

...and since your deeply-ingrained distrust of anyone who claims to know more about you on any given subject is so enormously overwhelming...

Greg, it's not so much that I distrust people who claim to know more [than] me on any given subject, it's that I don't trust people who claim it and then leave it at that. Ahem: If you haven't learned by now that I don't settle for "because I said so," then you haven't been paying attention.

If Google, Bing or other search engines are handling dozens or even hundreds of these requests (as seems likely) the damage done to an innocent site could be severe to fatal.

Right, and if one of the Constitutional flaws in the law is, as Professor Tribe explained is that it has teeth enforcing an IP-holder's request without a hearing, and if the obvious solution to that is to give teeth to the counter-notification, then Google, Bing, or other search engines could become liable for failure to comply with the law.