SOPA Dies

[stebo0728]

Well, my faith in humanity hasn't been completely restored yet, but it got a nice boost yesterday after seeing that protests can still work for more than just defecating in parks.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/networking/sopa-derailed/1897

[bigbadberry3]

Now about PIPA.... die.

[IBCoupe]

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

[bigbadberry3]

Are we sure it's dead?

[themadscientist]

Better be sure.

[IBCoupe]

What is it you guys don't like about the law?

[stebo0728]

What is it you guys don't like about the law?

That its a law, put in place by a government. Or attempted I should say, since at least for now its dead.

[IBCoupe]

Yeah, okay. That's a terrible reason to not like a law, unless you're an anarchist. No, wait, it's still a terrible reason.

[stebo0728]

So not wanting a law limiting how many ounces of butter you can have on your waffle, is that anarchism?

My point is, not everything requires a law, not every domain falls under the jurisdiction of the almighty imperial federal government.

[IBCoupe]

So not wanting a law limiting how many ounces of butter you can have on your waffle, is that anarchism?

No.

My point is, not everything requires a law, not every domain falls under the jurisdiction of the almighty imperial federal government.

Any my point is "I hate this law because it's a law" is a terrible reason to hate a law.

[stebo0728]

Srsly tho...

The originally proposed bill would allow the U.S. Department of Justice, as well as copyright holders, to seek court orders against websites accused of enabling or facilitating copyright infringement. Depending on who makes the request, the court order could include barring online advertising networks and payment facilitators from doing business with the allegedly infringing website, barring search engines from linking to such sites, and requiring Internet service providers to block access to such sites. The bill would make unauthorized streaming of copyrighted content a crime, with a maximum penalty of five years in prison for ten such infringements within six months. The bill also gives immunity to Internet services that voluntarily take action against websites dedicated to infringement, while making liable for damages any copyright holder who knowingly misrepresents that a website is dedicated to infringement.[4]

Most of that sounds benign enought except for:

the court order could include barring online advertising networks and payment facilitators from doing business with the allegedly infringing website, barring search engines from linking to such sites, and requiring Internet service providers to block access to such sites

That part reaks of government interference in the private sector. The whole copyright ingringement part would be fine in and of itself, I value intellectual property equally with physical property. The problem comes in when the court is given the ability to block business being done with violators. I can understand, given our history of back and forth on varying issues, that you would find no fault in this, but I do, and Im surprised that you would not understand why I do, again given our history.

[stebo0728]

Oh, and blocking access? There is where the court is out of its jurisdiction. If the site continues to infringe, continue punitive action, continue it till the cows come home, make it so they cant pay their hosting bill, but blocking access, blocking linking, blocking search function, NO, NO SIR INDEED

[IBCoupe]

If you continue to tresspass and I'm tired of it, it's okay for me to get a court order that you stop tresspassing, but it's not okay for the police to enforce that order and physically prevent you from entering my property?

[stebo0728]

Sure, but in this case then the police are not only keeping me from trespassing on your property, but now they are keeping me from going to Taco Bell, I can forget going to the barbor shop, and I guess mom will have to buy my groceries.

Thats a witty little analogy you draw, but we both now its not a parallel. We're not talking about a physical trespass, and the punitive implications are far more overreaching than enforcing a TPO.

[IBCoupe]

What if the only way to get groceries was to go through my property? Would that matter?

Seriously, though, if you're worried about your illicit behavior getting mixed up with your licit behavior, keep them separate. The statute is actually somewhat restrictively drawn: there are definitions as to when those orders are available, and it usually has to do with websites that are "primarily" used for the illicit purposes, or exceed a certain number of hours of infringing material each month.

[stebo0728]

What if the only way to get groceries was to go through my property? Would that matter?

What if I peed on a golf course, got caught, and subsequently have to register as a sex offender, and what if the only place I could live in my one horse town was either next to a school, one of its 8000 bus stops, or a public park.

Seriously, though, if you're worried about your illicit behavior catching up your licit behavior, keep them separate. The statute is actually somewhat restrictively drawn: there are definitions as to when those orders are available, and it usually has to do with websites that are "primarily" used for the illicit purposes, or exceed a certain number of hours of infringing material each month.

That all sounds well and good, just like the income tax was a "temporary measure", I dont trust government when they say things like that, "temporary" or "limited". The government should not have the powers set forth in this bill, not matter how limited you might try to make them. As I said, I'm all for protecting intellectual property, and including internet media under this protection is above board, but then giving government extra powers regarding enforcement, enforcement that arguably infringes upon free speech, thats no good. Use currently established methods of punishment and enforcement.

[themadscientist]

What is it you guys don't like about the law?

Laws can be beneficial and they can also be oppressive. Don't frame the term as if it is singularly benevolent. It isn't. Good laws are good, bad laws are bad. The former should be proposed and embraced, the latter should be resisted.

[stebo0728]

You're a big fan of C&A

[Encryptshun]

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.

[Encryptshun]

Put another way.

Someone on NiCO posts a comment about how they prefer Coke to Pepsi. NiCO's ISP issued take-down notice of entire forum without being required to inform NiCO of this, because the Coca Cola corporation considers "Coke" to be their registered trademark and therefore to have been used without permission by the NiCO user.

Neither SOPA nor PIPA distinguish between "fair use" and "copyrighted" when it comes to the definition of content.

[stebo0728]

NO MOAR GIFS?!?

[Encryptshun]

That is the greatest animated gif in the history of the internet.

[stebo0728]

LOL @ Logic

[themadscientist]

someone should send the bill's sponsors links to goatse or tubgirl.

[stebo0728]

maybe a lemonparty with bluewaffles and syrup?

[Encryptshun]

I am absolutely in favor of laws properly designed to battle IP Pirates, counterfeiters, scammers, spammers, and patent infringers. But if you see someone on a corner hocking fake watches, you don't shut down the whole street.

[bigbadberry3]

Like this law would stop any actual pirates ....

[IBCoupe]

That all sounds well and good, just like the income tax was a "temporary measure", I dont trust government when they say things like that, "temporary" or "limited".

The thing is, they'd have to pass a whole new law to do that. The law's pretty explicit on the bare minimum qualification for private enforcement.

Laws can be beneficial and they can also be oppressive. Don't frame the term as if it is singularly benevolent.

Not trying to do that, just trying to weed out legitimate criticism from blind hysteria.

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.

Meaning you have to get a court to go along with it. The old process was this:

"Please stop posting our content on the internet without paying us first."
"Court, please tell them to stop posting our content on the internet without paying us first."
"Justice Department, please tell them to obey the Court."
"Thank you, Justice Department, for taking actual steps towards protecting our property."

Under SOPA, it'd be:
"Please stop posting our content without paying us first."
"Court, please take actual steps towards protecting our property."
"Thank you, Court, for taking actual steps towards protecting our property."

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.

It does allow for self-correction. If you take down the material and show the property-owner that you've dealt with it, you gain protection. It absolutely encourages better moderation, of course, because that avoids the cost and expense of having to send lawyers to the Courthouse in the first place.

Realistically threatens the sanctity of parody as protected speech.

Not seeing how. Parody's protected by the First Amendment, and it's already being dealt with under all kinds of IP law: parody is acceptable as long as you use as little IP as possible to effectuate your parody.

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.

Not seeing how. It gives IP-owners the ability to go to a Court and get a Court order, but that "get" part isn't automatic. There's no reason to think that the law actually would circumvent your right to contest the seeking of the order, in the same way that you get to contest the existing proceedings. It's just that failing to do so kinda hurts a bit quicker.

NiCO's ISP issued take-down notice of entire forum without being required to inform NiCO of this, because the Coca Cola corporation considers "Coke" to be their registered trademark and therefore to have been used without permission by the NiCO user.

That doesn't even come close to being supported by the proposed law. NiCO's webhost might do that (because, of course, they're leasing it and Greg's got to obey the ToS), but it won't be because Coke sued on behalf of their TM, and it won't have anything to do with this law.

This is what I'm talking about. The law doesn't give that kind of power to anybody. Here's the text of it at the Library of Congress: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.3261: . I did a write-up a while ago about it; it's somewhere on the forums. I can look for it this weekend if you guys are still panicking.

[stebo0728]

Great video, encapsulates the nature of the opposition to the bill. Explains everything you need to know.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzqMoOk9NWc[/youtube]

[IBCoupe]

I'll watch it this weekend.