27 replies to this topic

[ThatJoeGuy]

It you google "SOPA Bill text" you will get a good link. I got the same location, so I assume it will expire as well, so not worth linking again.

[shadragon]

Summary and Full Text available here.

This site carries all legislation in front of Congress and its present whereabouts in the system.

S

[sharkCrazy]

I'm trying to understand the concern here. So you condone stealing copyrighted materials?

The concern is the wording of the bill. It was written by lobbyists and is, to sum it up in a word, vague. It allows broad powers to remove web sites from the DNS listings, effectively removing them from the Internet if found in violation. However, the burden of proof to establish that is nebulous at best. Some are saying a mere accusation or suspicion from a copyright holder can empower the courts to act. Then the site owner must effectively prove their innocence in court to get their site back on line. So in the blink of an eye, YouTube, Picasa, FaceBook, Google, Bing, Yahoo, Wikipedia etc. could disappear.

Understand that every photo/video taken and every word written are automatically copyrighted. You (the author) have to actively place that photo in the public domain to remove it from copyright status or wait 50 years for it to expire naturally. With SOPA and PIPA, in the blink of an eye, the Internet will become an information desert. It would be akin to punishing someone with a shotgun blast to the knees for a jaywalking offence without clearing the sidewalk of other people first. It would get messy, very quickly. The worse damage would be caused to copyright holders themselves as they would then have to prove copyright ownership to a web site owner before their materials could be published online. How do you prove you took that photo? A deposition? Some sort of registry? Who will cover those costs? You can bet it will not be the site owners. Many web sites will simply not allow those materials to be published any more to avoid the whole mess. Others will just shut down.

The biggest issue is that the Internet goes beyond US borders and they would be blocking global traffic. The comparisons to the Great Firewall of China are apt.

There are sufficient laws on the books to handle this today. I won't comment on those as I would surely violate the TOS. However SOPA / PIPA would be the first step of establishing Internet Police. And that would be the thin end of the wedge as my Dad would say.

Well said!!

[Landlocked Dive Nut]

The good intentions part of S.O.P.A. is to help writers, artists, authors, stop blatant copying like this.

I don't know why you have a problem with what you're linking to. The artist name is all over the art so he is getting the credit, the poster just gave the artist greater exposure. I would purchase a book of his cartoons now that I know about him. I had never heard of him before this.

I can't tell you how much music I have gone online and purchased, simply based on tracks I've heard playing on YouTube diving videos I've watched. It has exposed me to artists I'm not familiar with, and given the artist sales they would not otherwise have gotten. In addition, the videos have given music credits so I knew who to search for.

I don't think the artists would complain about making more sales due to the wider exposure they're inadvertently getting through the internet.

[peterbj7]

Of course there is a problem with unauthorised copying and a solution is needed, but IMO this is not it. Deciding that you can't control the acts themselves and deciding instead to control communication is a dangerous and slippery slope that we do NOT want to go down.

There is also the aspect that once again the US is seeking to make law for non-US citizens, and that is totally unacceptable to the vast majority of us who do not live in the USA.

[ThatJoeGuy]

My main issue is that it places enforcement in the wrong place.

Imagine it was immoral and illegal to play monopoly in your back yard. Everyone knows it is a filthy dirty game which leads to wall street take overs, and it is completely inappropriate to play. But especially in the back yard.

With this law, instead of reporting you to the MIB enforcers to do an investigation, says the correct way to handle the situation is to tell all your friends, family, neighbors, coworkers, and boss that you are engaging in MIB. It is their responsibility to tell you that you have been accused of MIB. (You dirty scum sucker you.) And you have to protest your innocence to all of them. No matter that you prove yourself innocent, you will always be remembered as that person who was accused of playing Monopoly in the Backyard.

That is assuming guilt until proven innocent.

That isn't how you get justice.

[ScubaShafer]

The way copyright infringement works now:

The owner of the copyrighted material first has to realize that his property has been stolen. (This isn’t as easy as someone coming into your back yard and stealing your legal Monopoly game out of your hands. You may have to search the internet full-time to find the infringement or rely on friends to inform you about an infringement.)

Then the owner has to notify the thief in writing that he is a thief and request the thief to stop using the copyrighted materials.

If the thief agrees to stop using the copyrighted materials, then No-Foul. If the thief says, “I’m sorry; can I give you a few bucks for your troubles?” and the owner accepts, then No-Foul. (Notice I didn’t say “No-Harm-No-Foul” as the thief may have already benefited from using the stolen materiel.)

But, if the thief has a staff of lawyers and/or doesn't stop using the material, then the owner has to obtain an attorney to file suit against the thief, and then let the courts decide.

Do you think this is fair?

[ThatJoeGuy]

Is the current system fair? No.

But this proposed fix would make things worse. The power is being placed in the hands of everyone. That means it isn't just the honest IP owners like yourself. It is all the jerks and thieves and trolls on the internet. What if some person out there decided to borrow your pictures, and then accuse you of being the thief. You are now going to court again anyway, and also your ISP thinks you are a pirate.

For something like this to work, there must be an impartial third party who checks out if you are a pirate, before broadcasting this slander to everyone involved.

[shadragon]

OK, first that is the summary which is not the act itself which is not enforceable. You could also point to the sub-title which is: To promote prosperity, creativity, entrepreneurship, and innovation by combating the theft of U.S. property, and for other purposes. (Underline is mine)

I won't quote individual passages from the bill itself, I will stick with your quote for brevity. See below, my notes in brackets.

Here is the summary form Simons site in English:

Stop Online Piracy Act - Authorizes the Attorney General (AG) to seek a court order against a U.S.-directed foreign Internet site (That is all sites worldwide, save a few in North Korea and China) committing or facilitating online piracy (Please tell me what facilitating is.) to require the owner, operator, or domain name registrant, or the site or domain name itself if such persons are unable to be found (Who on this list is responsible for answering the charges? This could be three individuals, three corporations, trusts or partnerships or a mixture. Do they have to contact all, or just one?), to cease and desist further activities constituting specified intellectual property offenses under the federal criminal code including criminal copyright infringement, unauthorized fixation and trafficking of sound recordings or videos of live musical performances, the recording of exhibited motion pictures, or trafficking in counterfeit labels, goods, or services. Sets forth an additional two-step process that allows an intellectual property right holder harmed by a U.S.-directed site (No burden of proof is dictated, they simply make the accusation or claim) dedicated to infringement, or a site promoted or used for infringement under certain circumstances, to first provide a written notification identifying the site to related payment network providers and Internet advertising services (So you make a claim of infringement and can then immediately ask Visa and Google to stop paying and advertising the site - the ENTIRE site regardless of the violation or severity which is also not specified) requiring such entities to forward the notification and suspend their services to such an identified site unless the site's owner, operator, or domain name registrant, upon receiving the forwarded notification, provides a counter notification explaining that it is not dedicated to engaging in specified violations. (They have 5 days from receipt of the notice. Does not say business days so this could be delivered on a Thursday and takes effect on a Tuesday.) Authorizes the right holder to then commence an action for limited injunctive relief against the owner, operator, or domain name registrant, or against the site or domain name itself if such persons are unable to be found, (So they can also file for damages at the same time) if: (1) such a counter notification is provided (and, if it is a foreign site, includes consent to U.S. jurisdiction to adjudicate whether the site is dedicated to such violations) (Different colour as this is in brackets in the text - Basically it says, if your site which resides outside the US chooses to fight this, you must do it in US courts), or (2) a payment network provider or Internet advertising service fails to suspend its services in the absence of such a counter notification. Requires online service providers, Internet search engines, payment network providers, and Internet advertising services, upon receiving a copy of a court order relating to an AG action, to carry out certain preventative measures including withholding services from an infringing site or preventing users located in the United States from accessing the infringing site. (DNS takedown - The only way this is enforcable is if the US takes control of the DNS servers worldwide.) Requires payment network providers and Internet advertising services, upon receiving a copy of such an order relating to a right holder's action, to carry out similar preventative measures. (This is a financial takedown where Visa, Google, etc. cannot conduct financial business with a site accused, not convicted, but accused, of copyright infringement.) Provides immunity from liability for service providers, payment network providers, Internet advertising services, advertisers, Internet search engines, domain name registries, or domain name registrars that take actions required by this Act or otherwise voluntarily block access to or end financial affiliation with such sites. Permits such entities to stop or refuse services to certain sites that endanger public health by distributing prescription medication that is adulterated, misbranded, or without a valid prescription. Expands the offense of criminal copyright infringement to include public performances of: (1) copyrighted work by digital transmission, and (2) work intended for commercial dissemination by making it available on a computer network. (OK, this does not specify a private or public network. So you set up a private network for a concert or art show and if accused, this act applies) Expands the criminal offenses of trafficking in inherently dangerous goods or services to include: (1) counterfeit drugs; and (2) goods or services falsely identified as meeting military standards or intended for use in a national security, law enforcement, or critical infrastructure application. Increases the penalties for: (1) specified trade secret offenses intended to benefit a foreign government, instrumentality, or agent; and (2) various other intellectual property offenses as amended by this Act. Directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to review, and if appropriate, amend related Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Requires the Secretary of State and Secretary of Commerce to appoint at least one intellectual property attache to be assigned to the U.S. embassy or diplomatic mission in a country in each geographic region covered by a Department of State regional bureau.


***


1) Nowhere in here does it say the site will be shut down immediately. It clearly states there will be a court order, warnings, and a chance to defend yourself before that happens.


Right. You have 5 days. Here is an example. Kamala goes off on a trip and is gone for 7-8 days which is not unusual. She runs a website located in the UK containing 100,000 images of dive trips. On her return, she finds a registered letter from the DoJ / AG advising her that someone has claimed a series of copyrighted photos was published (by a regular board user) and a complaint was registered. As she did not respond within 5 days her web site was removed from DNS and her site is now is unreachable, Paypal, Visa and the other payment gateways have frozen her accounts and no longer acts on her behalf to finance her business.

Now she has to hire a lawyer in the field of IP to fight this. How quickly does the US legal system work? Can she survive financially during this time, and even if she can what will the bill for legal services be at the end of it? Does the claimant have to pay her legal expenses if the claims are proven fraudulent? No, she would then have to hire more US lawyers and sue that person in a civil suit.

2) It doesn't say anything about websites being held liable for posting of members. And even if they are then they will get a warning first. So you take the data down, say "I'm sorry", and go about your day.
Nor does it say it does not. Again, vague. Are you seriously saying that Facebook, YouTube, Picasa and the like will not be held liable for IP content posted by their users? That's the entire purpose of this bill. The Motion Picture Ass. of America is doing this to stop sites from displaying their materials posted by individuals. This places a HUGE financial burden on the web site operators.

It's not terribly vague and doesn't even seem unreasonable to me. I see no "slippery slope" here. We have the largest military in the world and it could crush the American population in a second. I have never gone to bed worried that there will be a tank in my yard in the morning. At some point you just have to trust that even though others may have more power than you, they are not necessarily out to get you.

Then you may sleep soundly. Yet, Google, Twitter, Facebook, and two thousand other web site operators DO find it objectionable. You have to ask yourself why that is.

IP is important to the people that own it. Its their lively hood and right now it can't be protected. Nearly every current law is inadequate for the internet. That is just the nature of the technology. I guess there are a lot of people that don't have any IP and don't understand that concept.

Yes. I am an author. I have been published numerous times in the past and had my works available for sale through shops and the Internet. I own both trademarked and copyrighted materials I sell on line. I will have a novel coming out very soon with four others planned that will be also be available online. In that position, I know what piracy is and does. Yet, this is an unreasonable bill that goes waaaaaaay too far without defined and clear roles. It was not written by IP experts, but lobbyists. As for "It cannot be protected" that is simply not true as seen yesterday when the US Gov took down a New Zealand file sharing site. It was run by a German born, New Zealand citizen. There are existing copyright / trademark laws that can be applied. Proponents say this law will kill piracy off for good and that is simply naive. Just as hundreds of gun laws have not stopped murders and bank robberies. Just as immigration laws have not stopped illegal border crossings. A locked door will only keep out an honest man.


Specifically, my objections to SOPA are:

1) There is no onus on the copyright holder to first contact the site where the alleged copyrighted material is held to ask them to remove the material in question. To make this work you have to give the offender an opportunity to deal with the situation BEFORE this kicks in. Currently, these are known as good faith take down requests. Go to YouTube and scroll around. It does not not take long to find removed vids. Individuals upload these materials, they should be the ones targeted.


2) The timeline that is stated for a response is 5 days which is ridiculously short. Just getting a legal document translated into another language takes the majority of that time (Remember these are going overseas and not everyone speaks 'Merican, so language translation both ways is a huge barrier). Then they have to get a response back. You need to investigate the complaint for validity, consult council in your own country, get a referral to a US based legal firm and engage a US based lawyer. You then need to consult with them, formulate a response and finally submit legal paperwork to a US court. Then you have to do the same thing for the financial agencies involved to get your cash flow re-established. This will take place across several time zones, possibly involve several languages and they have only 5 days. The legal costs are going to be insurmountable for small to mid-sized companies to bear and shutting down the site and walking away will be the only thing they can do at that point. Tell me with a straight face that this will not be abused by US companies to isolate and remove overseas competition. Plus, the responsible persons who need to deal with this are not specified beyond a list. To put it in another context, who do we charge with murder? The person who bought the gun, the one who registered the gun or the one who has the gun in his possession? Gee, here is a thought, how about we charge the person who pulled the trigger...?


3) The actions that can be carried out, on a mere accusation, violate sections of both the fifth and fourteenth amendments of the US constitution in my humble opinion.


4) I do not live in the United States. I have never lived in the US, nor will I ever in all probability. Yet, I am now subject to their laws and must defend myself in their courts even if I have never set foot in the country. Riiiiight... Telling the world they are now subject to US laws and courts is repulsive to not only me.


5) To make this work, you need to fully control the DNS system, Domain registrars and this effectively puts the Internet under the control of the US Gov. <=== This boys and girls is the unwritten danger of legislation like this.




6) The legislation is not equitable for lets say European copyright owners to go after US based sites who publish their copyrighted materials.

If you disagree with what I said above, that's fine. You have and are entitled to your opinion as are the various people (8,000,000+ people wrote their congressperson to object) and site owners (2,200 and counting) who have spoken out against this. Given the number of politicians who are scrambling away from this legislation, I doubt this will ever see light of day. And that is a good thing. Piracy is indeed a problem, but this is not the solution.

[ThatJoeGuy]

They have been stalled for now. Here's hoping they find a better solution.

http://www.politico....0112/71720.html

[Scubatooth]

Good. Then again alot of the sponsors of this bill are the same sponsors of NDAA. Maybe there finally getting the point that they are so supposed to be representatives of the citizens in there districts not big business/lobbies. Failure to do so could have a impact on their political future.

[Landlocked Dive Nut]

The CURRENT system at work: SEE HERE