I am against SOPA and PROTECT-IP. Are you?

[orngjce223]

Now, there are very few things that I care to stick my neck out for, but the internet anarchy I grew up with is one of those few things.

There is a hearing on SOPA tomorrow (11/16) and there is a internet day of protest against the bill.

The fact that it's even being considered is the fact that people with money are in the Entertainment business and want to keep everything they can under copyright for as long as possible so they can make money.

These bills completely ignore the structural underpinnings of the Internet that make it so successful and could well make the United States ultimately irrelevant in the global community.

When allegations can take down websites with no judges or evidence involved, when one poster on one website is sufficient to get the entire website taken down for not being "careful" enough... I really don't need to go on, do I?

This is for Bowman's "How Do I Live" cover (because it is not an original composition), and for that matter basically every website with user-generated content.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_IP_Act

[PleasingFungus]

The more I see the way things are going, the more I think it's a miracle that the Internet, free and open as it is, ever existed as all.

Worth fighting to try to keep it that way a little while longer.

[roxorfoxor]

Shouted at my "representatives" and signed a handful of petitions. Reblogged links and information everywhere.

Also ran into more than a few people too apathetic or fatalist to bother and reminded them that it's exactly that attitude that causes these things to get anywhere near passing in the first place.

[AProcrastinatingWriter]

If this does get passed, people will quickly be whipped into a frenzy. I don't think it'll stand.

Hopefully that'll all happen before the bill goes into act, though.

[Miff]

What we really need to raise massive support is for sites like Facebook, Google, and Amazon to put censor bars over their logo and put a plea for help on their landing pages.

[Coasterman29]

The US government doesn't know shit about the Internet. I'm just saying.

[goofoofighter]

What we really need to raise massive support is for sites like Facebook, Google, and Amazon to put censor bars over their logo and put a plea for help on their landing pages.

I'm actually kind of surprised that they're not.

[AProcrastinatingWriter]

What we really need to raise massive support is for sites like Facebook, Google, and Amazon to put censor bars over their logo and put a plea for help on their landing pages.

I'm actually kind of surprised that they're not.

I AM HERE TO PREDICT THE FUTURE

This bill will pass but, like every bill, will not go into effect immediately.

In the time between the bill passing and it going into effect, people will actually become aware of what's happening.

They will protest, and receive the backing of the companies you have mentioned.

There will be riots, possibly literal ones.

In the end it won't go into effect after all.

[goofoofighter]

Actually, I'm looking at the bill on OpenCongress.org right now...
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3261/show

The thing is MASSIVELY opposed. I'm not sure it will go far, but I'm taking action nonetheless. o: This bill could even put MSPA in danger!

Among the list of opposing organizations are Google, Mozilla, and Yahoo. We've got some powerhouses on our side, at least. :]

[The Fiend]

Any word on how they're going to police this thing if it passes? I'd think trying to go all Big Brother on the whole of the internet would actually cost more time and money than it's worth. pic related.

[Coasterman29]

I love the fact that there isn't any specifics in the supporting, just ones that kind of automatically are on the side, when really everything is specific on the offending side.

[AProcrastinatingWriter]

Any word on how they're going to police this thing if it passes? I'd think trying to go all Big Brother on the whole of the internet would actually cost more time and money than it's worth. pic related.

show spoiler

hide spoiler

Unfortunately, pic is also broken from the look of things.

Not certain, but it is for me at least.

And yeah this is a valid point you bring up - do we even have the technology to allow a comparatively small group of people to watch over the entirety of the internet for very specific types of material?

EDIT: Yeah either the pic only shows up for those who post it or it's working for me and not you for some reason. I've gone ahead and spoiled it just in case it's the latter.

[Hanky Panky]

I.
No.
This bill is an abomination.
It's like that Schoolhouse Rock "I'm Just a Bill" thing, except this proposed bill is some eight-legged, oppressive, fire breathing monstrosity that's too fucking vague.

[goofoofighter]

The pic works for me.

No cause of action shall lie in any Federal or State court or any administrative agency against, no person may rely in any claim or cause of action against, and no liability for damages to any person shall be granted against, a service provider, payment network provider, Internet advertising service, advertiser, Internet search engine, domain name registry, or domain name registrar for taking any action described in section 102(c)(2), section 103(d)(2), or section 103(b) with respect to an Internet site, or otherwise voluntarily blocking access to or ending financial affiliation with an Internet site, in the reasonable belief that—

the Internet site is a foreign infringing site or is an Internet site dedicated to theft of U.S. property; and
the action is consistent with the entity’s terms of service or other contractual rights.

Basically, all this means is that any of the listed people—registries, registrars, ISPs, or any advertiser—can cut off any website and get off scot free, so long as they can claim a “reasonable belief” that the site was infringing, or even just not doing enough to stop infringement. All they need is that reasonable belief and some boilerplate in their terms of service, and no one can sue them for that cutoff, for any reason whatsoever.

This is a situation tailor-made for an ISP to violate net neutrality and escape any consequences for it.

( http://www.publicknowledge.org/blog/...ity-violations )

Oh god, this is terrible. Vigilanty-ing is illegal for a reason. This section allows "Shoot first, ask questions later"

[Ultra]

Don't you love how this bill was made by a bunch of old assholes who weren't born in this generation and have absolutely no understanding of the Internet, let alone have barley even touched it?

[Sprak]

I hope I don't come off as longwinded or anything here, but I kind of feel like this needs to be examined for more than a knee jerk reaction.

Actually, I'm looking at the bill on OpenCongress.org right now...
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3261/show

The thing is MASSIVELY opposed.

... by the people on that website. Let's take a step back and realise that when we're considering a bill about the internet, the internet is not necessarily going to be a nonbiased source.

THAT SAID, count me in on the list of people shocked and horrified by all this. I'm really not a fan of jumping onboard bandwagons, especially when there's an air of urgency and almost hysteria about it, so I read the damn thing in its entirety (something I urge everyone with patience for legalese to do), and, yeah, it's basically what they say it is. As far as I, a layperson, can tell, yes, they can take down a suspected site by way of preliminary injuction without allowing for it to be defended first; to defend it, one must seek injunctive relief after the fact, undermining that whole "innocent unless different is proven" thing. They deal with sites outside of US jurisdiction by proceeding in rem against the domain name itself, and if they decide a domain resolves to an "infringing site" (which by the way is a nebulous definition the bill never stops to nail down), they can compel US based search engines and domain name servers to strike the site from their records, in a process I can liken to nothing but a memory hole.

No, as far as I can tell, the immediate effect of the bill would not be as bad as some sites are making it out to be. You have to remember that injunctions go through judges, who are human. I doubt any site's gonna get shut down 'cos one guy posts links to the pirate bay. And at some level, the lack of immediate ill effect might be why the bill is scary; it's more likely to pass. What it does do is condone censorship.

I did my best to analyse the bill in another thread, and I'm gonna quote part of that, here, 'cos I think it's relevant.

S.968's not as bad as a lot of the sites advocating against it make it sound, but it's still chipping away at a part of what makes the internet what it is, namely, complete freedom from censorship. Anyone can have their say here, for better of for worse. This bill is creating the system through which websites deemed "wrong" by the US government may be systematically removed from the internet, and yes, as best as I can tell, they can be removed without allowing the owner to make his case. I worry that this could set an unfortunate precedent.

The sites that are targeted are pirate sites and bogus pill sites. I won't argue that either are legal. But it's not the US government's place to legislate this. No, I don't have the answer, but I can tell you shutting down websites won't do the trick. I've observed time and time again that when you implement measures to prevent people from breaking the law, they will easily circumvent them, and it's the law abiding ones who suffer, having to deal with the new restrictions that provide no real benefit. One only has to look at the dreadful state of DRM to see how well anti-piracy measures work.

If I see this act having any impact, it will be to drive pirate websites onto the servers of countries either more sympathetic to privacy or, more likely, those who don't care about pirates. And once all the pirate websites are immune to the DOJ taking them down by virtue of being on Chinese server space, they will resort to their in rem action against the domain name itself.

And this is the dangerous part. Because they can then compel American DNSs (an integral part of the internet at large) to erase the offending domain from their records, ironically joining China and their Project Golden Shield in the loser's circle for internet censors.

And you know what? All a pirate has to do to circumvent that is to know the 4 to 12 digit IP address of the site, something which could easily be accomplished by visiting a foreign DNS. Congratulations, you've now abridged the rights of the American public and done nothing to stop the problem you set out to address.

Oh well, I suppose that's the US legal system in a nutshell.




God, I am bitter. Sorry, I meant unsweet.

[AProcrastinatingWriter]

^Oh look.

Logic.

[Miff]

Any word on how they're going to police this thing if it passes? I'd think trying to go all Big Brother on the whole of the internet would actually cost more time and money than it's worth. pic related.

Bill passes, studios toss the heap of form letters they had already prepared in the mail to Visa, MasterCard, PayPal, etc.- Bam! All funding gets pulled to sites that rely on "premium" memberships to survive. They toss in another heap addressed to Google, Omniture, etc.- Ta-da! All funding gets pulled to sites that rely on advertising to survive.

[goofoofighter]

Even according to the logic posted above... If this is as I am reading it - essentially an extension of copyright law - Many of the entertainment companies and those with similar intellectual property, they can plea infringement on whatever they want. And in the spirit of "shoot first - ask later", the site in question goes down until the case is solved.

If say, Microsoft were to file a claim against Andrew for using "MS Paint" in his website title and domain, he would proceed to lose all funding until the case is solved if they took the site down under suspicion of infringement. I assume this is his entire livelihood.

Most of what I worry about is those people or companies that go lawsuit-crazy on anyone that uses something that so much as HINTS at their intellectual property. And the US becoming China, so far as censorship goes.

[Coasterman29]

The US government doesn't know shit about the Internet. I'm just saying.

[The Fiend]

Well that certainly is depressing. I hope that congress has at least a few people who know what they're doing...or at least enough who like to partake of the internet's forbidden fruit themselves. Speaking of which...4chan was hit by a ddos attack a couple of days ago. Think this is connected?

[Sprak]

Even according to the logic posted above... If this is as I am reading it - essentially an extension of copyright law - Many of the entertainment companies and those with similar intellectual property, they can plea infringement on whatever they want. And in the spirit of "shoot first - ask later", the site in question goes down until the case is solved.

If say, Microsoft were to file a claim against Andrew for using "MS Paint" in his website title and domain, he would proceed to lose all funding until the case is solved if they took the site down under suspicion of infringement. I assume this is his entire livelihood.

Most of what I worry about is those people or companies that go lawsuit-crazy on anyone that uses something that so much as HINTS at their intellectual property. And the US becoming China, so far as censorship goes.

That's an interesting thing. The bill provides these conditions for injunctions against a site.

(A) the domain name is used within the United States to access such Internet site; and
(B) the Internet site—
(i) conducts business directed to residents of the United States; and
(ii) harms holders of United States intellectual property rights.


While this doesn't allow the owner to preemptively defend against the initial injunction, it does provide guidelines, namely Section 2, definition 7, for determining if the site is "dedicated to infringing activities,"

(7) the term ‘‘Internet site dedicated to infringing activities’’ means an Internet site that
(A) has no significant use other than engaging in, enabling, or facilitating the reproduction, distribution, or public performance of copyrighted works, in complete or substantially complete form, in a manner that constitutes copyright infringement under section 501 of title 17, United States Code;
(ii) violation of section 1201 of title United States Code; or
(iii) sale, distribution, or promotion of goods, services, or materials bearing a counterfeit mark, as that term is defined in section 34(d) of the Lanham Act; or
(B) is designed, operated, or marketed by its operator or persons operating in concert with the operator, and facts or circumstances suggest is used, primarily as a means for engaging in, enabling, or facilitating the activities described under clauses (i), (ii), or (iii) of subparagraph (A);

While I'd rather see them specify this term as opposed to the more arguable "harms holders of United States intellectual property rights," I think the bill is referring back to that definition. This is all stuff that already is cause for litigation in the US. While I certainly expect a large number of frivolous and bogus claims, I also have to assume that the average judge is capable of identifying and discarding such claims.

So while I'm by no means defending the bill, I sincerely doubt sites like MSPA are in danger. I feel the real threat is less that the provisions of the bill would be used to attack lawful sites, and much more the censorship it will create and the precedent that sets.

[goofoofighter]

I really love the light you're bringing to this, Sprak. I try to read bills and understand them and often I just get lost in all the back-and-forth referencing, crazy terminology and excessive line-breaking.

While I'd rather see them specify this term as opposed to the more arguable "harms holders of United States intellectual property rights," I think the bill is referring back to that definition. This is all stuff that already is cause for litigation in the US. While I certainly expect a large number of frivolous and bogus claims, I also have to assume that the average judge is capable of identifying and discarding such claims.

So while I'm by no means defending the bill, I sincerely doubt sites like MSPA are in danger. I feel the real threat is less that the provisions of the bill would be used to attack lawful sites, and much more the censorship it will create and the precedent that sets.

I wish I were half as confident in the judges of the US as you were, but that fact aside... I'm more concerned about the ability to take down a site until judgement is made. Even if they are found innocent, they are down for that much time. And court is not a cheap thing. :S

Would you care to expand on the precedent you're concerned about being set? I'm curious. o:

[Sprak]

I really love the light you're bringing to this, Sprak. I try to read bills and understand them and often I just get lost in all the back-and-forth referencing, crazy terminology and excessive line-breaking.

show spoiler

hide spoiler

While I'd rather see them specify this term as opposed to the more arguable "harms holders of United States intellectual property rights," I think the bill is referring back to that definition. This is all stuff that already is cause for litigation in the US. While I certainly expect a large number of frivolous and bogus claims, I also have to assume that the average judge is capable of identifying and discarding such claims.

So while I'm by no means defending the bill, I sincerely doubt sites like MSPA are in danger. I feel the real threat is less that the provisions of the bill would be used to attack lawful sites, and much more the censorship it will create and the precedent that sets.

I wish I were half as confident in the judges of the US as you were, but that fact aside... I'm more concerned about the ability to take down a site until judgement is made. Even if they are found innocent, they are down for that much time. And court is not a cheap thing. :S

Would you care to expand on the precedent you're concerned about being set? I'm curious. o:

To be completely honest, I'm a fair bit less confident in our legal system as a whole than I'm coming off. In a topic like this, I think it's important to consider how it's expected to work along with how it probably will work, and while my knowledge of the inner workings of the courts is pretty sparse, with anything like an injunction, it can't just get rubber stamped. I have to assume that whoever is issuing these injunctions is going to do their due diligence when deciding whether or not to do it, and should a judge be unfair in their decisions, they will be called on it. While this may be overly optimistic, I would point out that impartiality and correctness of judges is the basis of our entire legal system, and the inherent issues that poses are less a fault of the bill and more a cause for reevaluation of the court system in general.

I am actually just as concerned about the prejudgement as you are, as it kind of does spit in the face of presumed innocence. As far as I can tell though, the AG or plaintiff has to make a proper case that the site is "harming them as a holder of US IP rights" to a judge in order for the injunction to go through. This is more in the territory of "right to confront your accuser."

Now, here is a thing, and I may be interpreting this wrong, but here goes. This is Section 3, (a), and mirrors the counterpart subsections in Section 4. Action, by default, is supposed to be In Personam, meaning they serve you and everything. If, through due diligence, they can't find you, it proceeds In Rem. Subsection (b), which describes the injunctions which may be placed, can only go through if action has commenced. This means that unless they cannot find you and proceed in rem, you will know what's going on ahead of time, and can argue against the injunction.

Court is not cheap, and litigation is often a battle of attrition when corporation vs individuals is involved. I don't think I really want to tackle that here, suffice to say I agree with you on this front wholeheartedly.

So, if I'm interpreting correctly, what we're left with is a bill that puts faith in judges to decide whether a site is harming US IP owners. And while I have my reservations about that, it is kind of how the law works.

The precedent I'm so worried about comes down to censorship. It creates a system for filtering access to content that the government has deemed inappropriate (not even necessarily illegal) and announces that it is for our own good, and it paves the way for censorship of other content, should it be deemed necessary. The free-flow of information is perhaps the internet's greatest aspect, and to censor any of it, even the worst of the worst, diminishes that.

[goofoofighter]

The precedent I'm so worried about comes down to censorship. It creates a system for filtering access to content that the government has deemed inappropriate (not even necessarily illegal) and announces that it is for our own good, and it paves the way for censorship of other content, should it be deemed necessary. The free-flow of information is perhaps the internet's greatest aspect, and to censor any of it, even the worst of the worst, diminishes that.

Indeed... My thoughts go back to the amendment to the Constitution that defined (and in such disallowed) same-sex marriage. It crossed the line between government and religion. If this new bill is taken too far I can see so many more similar things happening...

But the free flow of information of the internet is what has allowed so many people to organize action and stand up for good, both here in the States and Abroad.

Blah, it's 2 AM and I'm trying to be smart... I'm probably just sounding like a total dumbass. x_x