SOPA (WARNING: Experimental thread; highly moderated)

[billvon 2,400]

I'm surprised I haven't seen more posts here about SOPA.

SOPA ("Stop Internet Piracy Act") is a bill in the House now that would allow copyright holders to very easily shut down websites that they feel are infringing copyrights, or even making it easier to infringe copyrights. Here's how it could work:

A DZ.com user posts "hey check out my cool vid of my skydive!" The video has a copyrighted song as background music.

The holder of the copyright gets a court order to shut down DZ.com. They do this several ways:

1) Send the court order to DNS providers. They must then "delist" DZ.com, so that when you type in "www.dropzone.com" there is no way to get to the actual website (which is actually a numeric address.)

2) Send the court order to search engines, so that any search will not link to DZ.com

3) Send the court order to the server hosting DZ.com. This might not work since Canadian servers may not heed such court orders.

Per the present bill the only way to "turn it back on" is to go to court. The idea is that this will scare anyone who thinks about linking to copyrighted material and therefore no one will use copyrighted material without paying for it.

-------------------

EDITED TO ADD:

Since this is a very pertinent issue to people who post on on-line forums this thread will be used for an experiment - it will be highly moderated to keep it on topic and away from the usual partisan bickering.

[matthewcline 0]

Broken down like that, and with out all the double speak and gobbledygook of the bill, I think it could be a bad idea. To many shut downs over "I don't like what he is saying" events could happen.

Matt

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

[Andrewwhyte 1]

So;
1. Go to foxnews.com
2. in the comments section link to a song your partner owns.
3. Your partner demands foxnews.com be delisted.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

So;
1. Go to foxnews.com
2. in the comments section link to a song your partner owns.
3. Your partner demands foxnews.com be delisted.

Then we can do the same with all the *other* news channels, along with moveon, thinkprogress, dkos, dem underground and the other Soros affiliates.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 2,400]

Four posts in and already it's the usual partisan bullshit.

I'm going to do an experiment here, since this is a sort of a rare topic - one that actually might affect people posting on DZ.com directly. I'm going to declare this a non-partisan thread and moderate it accordingly. So feel free to post your opinion on it, but as soon as it veers into "fuck Obama" territory (or equivalent) those posts will be deleted.

As it develops please PM me or one of the other mods to see what you think of a thread moderated in that fashion. I'll label this thread "experimental" so people will know what to expect.

[winsor 186]

Quote

Four posts in and already it's the usual partisan bullshit.

I'm going to do an experiment here, since this is a sort of a rare topic - one that actually might affect people posting on DZ.com directly. I'm going to declare this a non-partisan thread and moderate it accordingly. So feel free to post your opinion on it, but as soon as it veers into "fuck Obama" territory (or equivalent) those posts will be deleted.

As it develops please PM me or one of the other mods to see what you think of a thread moderated in that fashion. I'll label this thread "experimental" so people will know what to expect.

I think SOPA is a terrible idea, devoid of merit.

The intention of ensuring that people get paid when someone benefits from the fruits of their labor is a valid concern. However, the usual priciple applies whereby, though the problem is real, this is anything but a solution. The law of unintended consequences is sure to rear its ugly head.


BSBD,

Winsor

[matthewcline 0]

Quote

Four posts in and already it's the usual partisan bullshit.

I'm going to do an experiment here, since this is a sort of a rare topic - one that actually might affect people posting on DZ.com directly. I'm going to declare this a non-partisan thread and moderate it accordingly. So feel free to post your opinion on it, but as soon as it veers into "fuck Obama" territory (or equivalent) those posts will be deleted.

As it develops please PM me or one of the other mods to see what you think of a thread moderated in that fashion. I'll label this thread "experimental" so people will know what to expect.

Yes, sad it went that way, that fast, but it did show I was not off in my point in how the law wold be abused.

Matt

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

[aphid 0]

I think the proponents of legislation like this are actually cutting their noses off to spite their faces. I'll give a few examples from my own experience.

Music Publishers: I have on numerous occasions encountered new artists & musical selections featured on youtube clips (and other places) that created enough interest that I went to iTunes and purchased songs and albums as a direct result. In 2010, this likely was about $30 or so. If I hadn't tripped across those selections on the "unrestricted" internet, that's $30 that wasn't going to be spent. No, it's not much, but I'm just one average consumer.

Newspapers & magazines: I will often take the link to an article posted in a forum if the topic is of interest to me, DZcom being no exception. In accessing the on-line article, I increase the traffic count to the host, and encounter the advertising they have sold. They may have other articles or op/ed pieces I might also check out. As on-line advertising is priced on a cost/1000 basis, increased traffic means more views, higher ad revenues, and for the marketers, increased potential customers.

It seems that legislation like this is driven by an old-school mindset that is not adapting to the new global digital commerce of skills, art, communication and service.

I could expand on this from personal experience as to how the US Internal Revenue Service is at complete odds with how the US Customs agency interprets the concept of "working". But that is a can-of-worms for another thread.

Under the Law of Unintended Consequences, I opine that should copyright holders become too aggressive courtesy of this legislation, they will only hasten their own demise.

John

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

Then we can do the same with all the *other* news channels, along with moveon, thinkprogress, dkos, dem underground and the other Soros affiliates.

Of course you are right. That's my point. Anyone can shut down any 'open site.'
News, pressure groups, political candidates, all gone from the web. The end result will be that the web will become television, it will be one way communication.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

So;
1. Go to foxnews.com
2. in the comments section link to a song your partner owns.
3. Your partner demands foxnews.com be delisted.

Then we can do the same with all the *other* news channels, along with moveon, thinkprogress, dkos, dem underground and the other Soros affiliates.

I don't think he was suggesting that; rather, he was using that as an illustrative example of the danger of SOPA: it has the potential for abuse that would greatly endanger the internet freedom of expression rights of everyone of every stripe.

(ETA: OK, he clarified that while I was typing this. )

And with that proposition, I would agree: before long, every website would be at risk of de facto sabotage by anyone with a hostile agenda.

[wolfriverjoe 1,341]

Ok, in a non-partisan way, there is way too much potential for abuse.

As was stated, someone could go on (let's say) Fluffybunny.com and deliberately post a copyrighted link, make a complaint and get it shut down.
The operators of Fluffybunny.com suspect their comptetion, SpeechImpairedDuck.com of doing it, so they do it to SpeechImpairedDuck.com.

Then, either:

A: SpeechImpairedDuck.com doesn't realize that it was Fluffybunny.com, but instead believes it's Be VewyVewyQuiet.com and retaliates against them.

or

B:SpeechImpairedDuck.com does realize who it was and goes after everyone associated with Fluffybunny.com.

There's too many constitutional issues about due process for this to go too far.

At least I hope so.

In any case, if it goes through, expect someone to use it to attack numerous government websites to demonstrate how stupid this is.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Has the SCOTUS ruled yet on whether a hyperlink is legally a publication? Here is a story about the Supreme court of Canada ruling on the issue. The case involves liable in a defamation case, but the comments in the ruling will, I would expect, cover copyright law as well.

Quote

The court said hyperlinks are like footnootes in that they communicate that something exists but do not, by themselves, communicate its content.

The rulings of the SCOC have no bearing on how the SCOTUS will rule, but the two courts rarely vary far on fundamental points of law, particularly on the parts that come from our common heritage.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I'm surprised I haven't seen more posts here about SOPA.

to be honest, I think there is considerable fatigue over the never ending stream of shitty legislation to protect media corps from the evil consumer, going back to DMCA in 1998. It's not just here in the US - the Europeans also have seen outrageous bills that subvert the notion of ownership and fair use. Supposedly the legislature represents the will of the people; I have yet to see a people endorse these bills.

And yet, industry is completely failing in their efforts to stop human behavior. Perhaps SOPA is the death rattle and we can finally move on. Meanwhile, I'm content that the EFF and ACLU types will force more litigation, just as they did a number against the RIAA. It's unfortunate this effort must be expended on the subject, but the outcome seems inevitable.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

So;
1. Go to foxnews.com
2. in the comments section link to a song your partner owns.
3. Your partner demands foxnews.com be delisted.

Then we can do the same with all the *other* news channels, along with moveon, thinkprogress, dkos, dem underground and the other Soros affiliates.

I don't think he was suggesting that; rather, he was using that as an illustrative example of the danger of SOPA: it has the potential for abuse that would greatly endanger the internet freedom of expression rights of everyone of every stripe.

(ETA: OK, he clarified that while I was typing this. )

And with that proposition, I would agree: before long, every website would be at risk of de facto sabotage by anyone with a hostile agenda.

Makes quite the slippery slope, does it not? Once again, good intentions end up causing harm.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

I'm surprised I haven't seen more posts here about SOPA.

to be honest, I think there is considerable fatigue over the never ending stream of shitty legislation to protect media corps from the evil consumer, going back to DMCA in 1998. It's not just here in the US - the Europeans also have seen outrageous bills that subvert the notion of ownership and fair use. Supposedly the legislature represents the will of the people; I have yet to see a people endorse these bills.

And yet, industry is completely failing in their efforts to stop human behavior. Perhaps SOPA is the death rattle and we can finally move on. Meanwhile, I'm content that the EFF and ACLU types will force more litigation, just as they did a number against the RIAA. It's unfortunate this effort must be expended on the subject, but the outcome seems inevitable.

Well said.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[shropshire 0]

Quote

I think the proponents of legislation like this are actually cutting their noses off to spite their faces. I'll give a few examples from my own experience.
.....
Under the Law of Unintended Consequences, I opine that should copyright holders become too aggressive courtesy of this legislation, they will only hasten their own demise.

John

I couldn't agree more... Well said - I'm a similar 'average' punter - there are loads of us and together we have power.

I would further hazard a guess that it's not the 'artists' running with this but all of the shitester-hangers-on who create nothing but live off the backs of those that do (the B-arkers) - the world would, I'm sure, not mourn their passing!

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Remster 24]

Quote

it's not the 'artists' running with this

On the whole, probably, but there are quite a few very vocal artists in the digital rights debate (Metalica comes to mind).

Remster

[DSE 3]

Quote

Quote

it's not the 'artists' running with this

On the whole, probably, but there are quite a few very vocal artists in the digital rights debate (Metalica comes to mind).

My label has decided to not support SOPA (but does support the stepsister PIPA). SOPA is too far-reaching for common sense, and provides too much power.
As someone who makes their living entirely from copyright, the concept of SOPA is a sound one. The actuality of it is a different story. I suspect we'll see another markup before it goes to a vote, and then we'll see it likely pass Committee.

US citizens have done this to themselves. Continuing to download/upload copyrighted works, now setting the stage for 3D fabrication and illegal downloads. This is part of the implied urgency of SOPA and PIPA, IMO.

[nanook 1]

Not sure how the whole internet business works, but. . . How will this affect foreign servers here in the U.S? Are they able to actually/legally be able to block them? Is it easy to cease operation in the U. S. and move them overseas to avoid this?

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Four posts in and already it's the usual partisan bullshit.

I'm going to do an experiment here, since this is a sort of a rare topic - one that actually might affect people posting on DZ.com directly. I'm going to declare this a non-partisan thread and moderate it accordingly. So feel free to post your opinion on it, but as soon as it veers into "fuck Obama" territory (or equivalent) those posts will be deleted.

As it develops please PM me or one of the other mods to see what you think of a thread moderated in that fashion. I'll label this thread "experimental" so people will know what to expect.

I think SOPA is a terrible idea, devoid of merit.

The intention of ensuring that people get paid when someone benefits from the fruits of their labor is a valid concern. However, the usual priciple applies whereby, though the problem is real, this is anything but a solution. The law of unintended consequences is sure to rear its ugly head.


BSBD,

Winsor

good post

It boils down to who picks based on who is in control

Partisan?

I think so

But to what side is based on

as I said

Who is in control

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

it's not the 'artists' running with this

On the whole, probably, but there are quite a few very vocal artists in the digital rights debate (Metalica comes to mind).

this is a funny article:
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=23608

The studio behind Hurt Locker hoped to garner $94M suing people who downloaded the movie. (or more accurately, were associated with an IP address that did) Pretty ambitious for a movie that earned a bit over $12M at the box office.

[DSE 3]

Quote

Not sure how the whole internet business works, but. . . How will this affect foreign servers here in the U.S? Are they able to actually/legally be able to block them? Is it easy to cease operation in the U. S. and move them overseas to avoid this?

Quite easy to block those servers, but currently no authority to do so. There are even systems in place (currently, privately) that can block servers based on the amount of flesh tone they stream, identifying child pornography before it hits the USA.
There are ways to block systems like TORS from functioning as well. But there currently is no legal authority that allows it.

[billvon 2,400]

>How will this affect foreign servers here in the U.S?

You mean - how will they block foreign servers with "illegal" content if someone in the US tries to access them? Several methods:

1) Shutting down the server. Might work in places like the UK that will enforce our laws in exchange for our enforcing theirs, but in most cases won't work.

2) Internet service provider court orders. The bill provides an easy channel for a copyright holder to get a court order requiring an ISP (like Cox Cable) to not provide you access to a given website. There are a lot of problems with this, since you'd have to outlaw things like proxy servers/remote access protocols that allow you to access a site without going directly to that site and tunneling protocols that prevent the ISP from seeing where you are accessing.

As a simple example as to how one could get around this, you could use a VPN to access a service like Remote Desktop on a computer that's running in your company's India office, then surf the web to your heart's content. Find a file, download it to the India PC, zip it and mail it to your home PC.

3) DNS court orders. When you type in "www.dropzone.com" your computer has to ask a DNS where dropzone.com really is. It's really at TCP/IP address 204.187.14.148:80 - but no one wants to type all that in. So instead your computer asks the DNS service where it is, and it returns the address 204.187.14.148. (The 80 at the end is sort of assumed.) The bill provides a way to make those servers refuse to tell your computer where it is.

Of course the easy way around this is just to type in http://204.187.14.148:80.

4) Search engine court orders. They can order Google (for example) to not return any hits to dropzone.com matches.

>Is it easy to cease operation in the U. S. and move them overseas to avoid this?

Initially it would be a pain in the ass but there is a way around each of its provisions. The ultimate result would be just that web servers, e-commerce companies, server center maintenance companies etc would move offshore like many of our other industries have.

[nanook 1]

Thanks!
Sounds like something that in the long term that can cause more damage than protection. No thanks.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[nigel99 144]

It is a very interesting problem. I must admit that I detest software, music and video piracy. I realise that people make their livings from their output and this should be protected.

But the laws and balance are currently wrong. One of the people I know used to put soundtracks on the weekends jumps and then upload to facebook. Facebook removed his ability to upload video as a result. I am pretty sure that he paid for the soundtrack. As our lives become more 'online' it appears to me this is the modern equivalent of not letting you play the song at a private party.

How does the US propose this law works with the international community? Would only US clients be affected?