SOPA (WARNING: Experimental thread; highly moderated)

[shropshire 0]

Quote

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.

The people who watched it should have sued the film makers .. for the 90 minutes of wasted life

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

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

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.

You sound just like sony and other tv/movie producers who screamed in the 70s about how VCRs were nothing but tools of copyright infringement. Well maybe a bit more reasonable in tone, in not content.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

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.

So from your comment about the servers geographical siting does that mean that enforcement will only be applicable to USA based servers? I can't imagine that this act would be accepted under European law. Surely the biggest loser in this scenario would be the USAs ICT industry.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Bertt 0]

This bill is H.R.3261. Currently it's in the House Judiciary Committee.
Regardless of how you feel about it, there is only one way you can affect it's passage or rejection. Write your congressman.
Please remember that when you write or email your congressman, he doesn't read your letter. What really happens is an aide classifies your letter as FOR or AGAINST and puts it in a basket. The basket with the biggest stack wins (except for the influence of the lobbyist who took the congressman to lunch).
So don't write a long letter with lots of logic in it. Just send a letter or email that says: "I hope you will vote _____ (for or against) SOPA, H.R.3261. Thanks for your consideration."
If enough people do this, it will have an influence.

You don't have to outrun the bear.

[DSE 3]

Quote

. 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.

your friend may have paid for the LICENSE to listen to the soundtrack, but that does not give him the right to copy and distribute. Facebook and YouTube have made license arrangements with a few publishers, so this is why you hear/see videos made with copyrighted works. When you pay for a download or a CD, you do not own the song and may not use it as you see fit. You have a license to enjoy it, but that's it. You may not copy, alter, redistribute for the benefit of anyone other than yourself. It's a violation of the copyright and if the music is put to video, it's a violation of sync rights as well (separate issue).

You can play music at a party, provided it's a private party. There have been bars and clubs playing music under the umbrella of "party" without paying ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, and they've been fined.

This is the more applicable equivalent. SOPA allows the government to "road block" known traffickers of illegal/copy-righted content. The problem is that the bill is too far reaching for practical purposes.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

The real issue here is that it is a change from established law that effectively says that copyright, like patents, is a property and therefore civil issue. It is up to the owner of the property to enforce ownership in the courts. This law takes it out of the courts and the US government becomes an administrative tool for enforcement of what is essentially a private dispute. The fact is facebook and youtube have been forced to comply with copyright protection without this law is evidence that such measures are not needed.

[DSE 3]

Quote

Quote

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.

You sound just like sony and other tv/movie producers who screamed in the 70s about how VCRs were nothing but tools of copyright infringement. Well maybe a bit more reasonable in tone, in not content.

Please explain your comment.
A-Sony didn't do that
B-3D fabrication and copyright are valid concerns.

Do you know what the US #2 export is?

[Southern_Man 0]

Funny, somehow most of the bands I listen too allow people to freely record and distribute their music. I know it is a much different business model but it seems to be working out pretty well for them.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

who screamed in the 70s about how VCRs were nothing but tools of copyright infringement

The issue with VCRs was that their quality was limited. Each copy made from a VHS was worse than the copy from which it was made.

Digital copies can be made that are, for all intents and purposes, indistinguishable from the original. Copy after copy can be made. Not only that, but with the internet such information is so easily spread and disseminated that it's mind boggling.

What sort of damage could a computer virus do now versus the 1970's? That's the kind of inquiry we're talking about.

I personally do not like SOPA because it is seemingly an example of the cure being worse than the disease.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

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.

So, someone posts a youtube video here - dizzy dot could point the RIAA (or whomever) to youtube as the hosting server, could they not?

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

[billvon 2,400]

>dizzy dot could point the RIAA (or whomever) to youtube as the hosting server, could they not?

Yes - but the copyright holder could still pull the plug on DZ.com because they facilitated the distribution of the material. DZ.com could, of course, then take the issue to court, and perhaps in a few years get the website back up.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>dizzy dot could point the RIAA (or whomever) to youtube as the hosting server, could they not?

Yes - but the copyright holder could still pull the plug on DZ.com because they facilitated the distribution of the material. DZ.com could, of course, then take the issue to court, and perhaps in a few years get the website back up.

I disagree - again, dz.com could point back to youtube or the person posting the link as a defense.

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

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

So from your comment about the servers geographical siting does that mean that enforcement will only be applicable to USA based servers? I can't imagine that this act would be accepted under European law. Surely the biggest loser in this scenario would be the USAs ICT industry.

I believe similar EU legislation is further along already.

[DSE 3]

Quote

Quote

>dizzy dot could point the RIAA (or whomever) to youtube as the hosting server, could they not?

Yes - but the copyright holder could still pull the plug on DZ.com because they facilitated the distribution of the material. DZ.com could, of course, then take the issue to court, and perhaps in a few years get the website back up.

I disagree - again, dz.com could point back to youtube or the person posting the link as a defense.

You missed the point; Yes, DZ.com could defend, probably successfully. At a cost that would bury the website by the time a decision is rendered.
SOPA bypasses most of the normal legal processes.
SOPA has great intentions, but like the old saying "The road to hell is paved..."

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Quote

You sound just like sony and other tv/movie producers who screamed in the 70s about how VCRs were nothing but tools of copyright infringement. Well maybe a bit more reasonable in tone, in not content.

Please explain your comment.
A-Sony didn't do that
B-3D fabrication and copyright are valid concerns.

Do you know what the US #2 export is?

Sony was the one sued, Universal was the shrew. I typed that up wrong. The case I'm talking about, after going all the way to SCOTUS, is Sony Corp. of America v Universal City Studios, Inc.

3D fabrication is a fact of life. The technology is there, and getting easier. What's your problem with it?

The USA's biggest exports by the dollar are military hardware, commercial services, semi-conductors, aircraft, then cars (new/parts/accessories). I'm sure overseas sales of US videos and music are significant and you are going to claim they are #2 (source, please).

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>dizzy dot could point the RIAA (or whomever) to youtube as the hosting server, could they not?

Yes - but the copyright holder could still pull the plug on DZ.com because they facilitated the distribution of the material. DZ.com could, of course, then take the issue to court, and perhaps in a few years get the website back up.

I disagree - again, dz.com could point back to youtube or the person posting the link as a defense.

You missed the point; Yes, DZ.com could defend, probably successfully. At a cost that would bury the website by the time a decision is rendered.

No, I *didn't* miss the point.

I don't believe that a linked / embedded video would become a trigger, given the court case listed above. Sony or UA could virtually shut down the internet using that interpretation - it's *way* too broad, and would only last (if implemented in that fashion in the first place) until the first challenge in court.

Quote

SOPA has great intentions, but like the old saying "The road to hell is paved..."

Yes, I believe I mentioned something to that point, above.

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

[masterrig 1]

I found this interesting...


Chuck

[DSE 3]

Quote

3D fabrication is a fact of life. The technology is there, and getting easier. What's your problem with it?

The USA's biggest exports by the dollar are military hardware, commercial services, semi-conductors, aircraft, then cars (new/parts/accessories). I'm sure overseas sales of US videos and music are significant and you are going to claim they are #2 (source, please).

Did I say I have a problem with 3D printing?
Already been playing with it via a friends new 3D printer.

What I said (apparently not clearly) was that the US has shot themselves in the foot by not dealing with copyright sooner." I'm not talking about the onesie/twosie shares of "dude, you gotta hear this" when someone sends someone else an MP3. I'm talking about the guys that get their rocks off uploading to PirateBay and downloading as much copyright protected content as their hard drives can manage.
Berne, UCITA, DMCA, did not successfully address the problems. Apparently the EU feels the same, as they are looking to amend EUCD.

When 3D printing becomes a commodity, piracy will have a significant impact on the sustainability of inventors, developers, and manufacturers. I believe, based on some of the language used in debate of SOPA, that the intent is forward-looking to better protect against physical-object piracy. Jack Valente was hated for saying that "If you don't protect what you own, you own nothing."

You said Sony was complaining about VCR's being a tool for copyright infringement, that made no sense.
Sony via SPD, Paramount, Columbia, and other properties now find themselves on the other side of the argument. Clint Eastwood predicted this situation in 1982 during a Congressional hearing.

As far as America's #2 export.. One source
These may not be accurate; I'm not an export expert. Some claim entertainment is US'#1 export. Digital media certainly is up there with iTunes, Amazon, Netflix, games, CD's, DVDs, books, and so much other media available outside the USA, offshore sales exceeding 150B (I believe this was in Variety mag)

Another
Another
Another

An article I wrote 10 years ago on this subject It's somewhat outdated, but still relevant to the arguments.

There is no incentive to create something for which you will not be compensated. SOPA is a heavy-handed attempt to do protect those creations. Since 1710, this has been a hotly debated subject, even to the point where Shakespeare is thought to have changed how he/she published due to copyright concerns.

[billvon 2,400]

>Sony or UA could virtually shut down the internet using that interpretation - it's *way*
> too broad, and would only last (if implemented in that fashion in the first place) until
>the first challenge in court.

Agreed. But during that time it could do a lot of damage - which, I think, is the problem with the bill as it stands now,

(And yes, Sony could virtually shut down the net - at least for casual users in the US - unless their demands were met. That's a position any company would love to be in.)

[tmccann 1]

Quote

SOPA bypasses most of the normal legal processes.

Spot, this is an interesting comment. Looking quickly through the bill, I didn't understand the process for getting a court order in the first place, and that's where I'd expect a lot of the abuse. Do you know how that would work? Would the copyright owner be able to get a court order before the website owner has a chance to respond to the allegations?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

(And yes, Sony could virtually shut down the net - at least for casual users in the US - unless their demands were met. That's a position any company would love to be in.)

You know how much trouble Sony has had keeping their playstation network up this year? They are in a bad position to go nuclear - Anonymous would kick their ass back to the Sega Genesis era.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

Quote

(And yes, Sony could virtually shut down the net - at least for casual users in the US - unless their demands were met. That's a position any company would love to be in.)

You know how much trouble Sony has had keeping their playstation network up this year? They are in a bad position to go nuclear - Anonymous would kick their ass back to the Sega Genesis era.

Perhaps, but I don't think we really want retaliation by Anonymous to be a functioning part of the justice system.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

(And yes, Sony could virtually shut down the net - at least for casual users in the US - unless their demands were met. That's a position any company would love to be in.)

You know how much trouble Sony has had keeping their playstation network up this year? They are in a bad position to go nuclear - Anonymous would kick their ass back to the Sega Genesis era.

Perhaps, but I don't think we really want retaliation by Anonymous to be a functioning part of the justice system.

wouldn't be the preferred method - they're pretty fucked up individuals with very strange belief structures.

But it's a reality that while SOPA appears to give heavy power to Sony and others, their ability to use it will be more constrained to picking on the smaller fish. Still obnoxious, unconstitutional, unAmerican, et al, but the worst case scenarios aren't going to happen.

[DSE 3]

Funny how quickly this turned to being about Sony when they're not one of the major players. Sony parent company supports it, but that doesn't mean all their subsidiaries do. That aside....

SOPA works kinda like this. I find out that a site in or out of the USA is hosting illegal copies of my company's software, my music, or my training video content.
I notify that host, and notify any use ISP's routing that host, that they are in violation of my copyright.
"I DSE, owner of copyrighted works YYY & ZZZ hosted at 205.123.456.78 hereby demand you immediately cease and desist from hosting or transferring said content. You have 5 days to comply."
I can also notify Paypal or whatever payment service they're using to seize any funds from that ISP. This is one strength of SOPA.
Further, I can demand search engines to exclude those hosting sites from being seen on the search engine. This is another strength.

They have no choice but to comply, if they're in the US or have US pipes.
No..."Sony" can't take down the internet with this bill (nor can the primary sponsors MPAA, Viacom, RIAA, Nike, NBA, MacMillan Press, Virgin, etc. But they sure can make a lot of people unhappy.

None of the above involves any court action. A properly worded letter, and that's about it. ISP's have 5 days to comply or agree in writing to bring their foreign agents to a US court of law.
This process is already in place with YouTube and similar UCG sites, and it's how they skirt copyright issues. You complain, they remove or notify the "violator" and allow him to respond/argue. FWIW, I've successfully argued with YouTube when it was discovered BuenaVista had taken a song licensed from me, and registered it as their own. YouTube backed down very fast.

SOPA would not protect YouTube and they would be forced to immediately respond to copyright challenges. It could get real expensive, real fast. And a lot of content would go down.

We're going to see some variation of SOPA passed in the next couple of years; SOPA isn't the right answer, but it's the right intent, IMO.

[jsaxton 0]

using despoa or non-us dns servers is trivial however this will increase latency for any DNS based CDN, which rely on the ip address of the DNS server to determine locality of the endpoint.