I've already signed it.  It's definitely been going around in my Facebook circles lately.

Yeah, I signed too.  Even my kid was like, "The internet is the last place where you can put weird stuff!"

I sent emails to both senators and my congressmen today about it. I do understand that internet piracy is hitting business, but to the tune of 135 billion dollars a year, according to the Washington Post article I read?  Pharmaceutical companies are also lobbying for this bill, so I guess knock off Viagra websites are doing better than I thought the spam warranted. 

Reactions to the bill have been hyperbolic.  The bill definitely has its issues, many of which I expect to be hammered out before it passes.  But comparisons to the Great Firewall of China, and throwing around the word "censorship" are unfair.

I'm curious how you folks think the bill will affect you, personally?

The specific, non-inflammatory point I made in my email is that it's punishing the wrong people, like search engines. The House bill is a good bit worse than the Senate's, both of which I read this afternoon.  At one point, it talked about fining and shutting down any foreign websites that traffic in copywrited materials and offered anything (even legitimate services) directed at the US.   As an English teacher, I push my kids to pick up free ebooks whenever possible. There is a website that I use that has US public domain etexts. However, it also serves other non-American countries that have different copywrite and public domain laws. For example, The Great Gatsby is still under copywrite in the US, but is currently not in Australia. That website could be fined and shut down (at least in the US) because it is offering a US copywrited work.

I love Youtube's active covers culture. I love what some of the people there do with popular songs. We don't do covers as much on a national scale, so I love that unpaid fans do their own versions. It has helped make some people famous and launched careers, but those people were not making profit off those songs.

Those are the things I see that can be stopped with this bill.

Edit: Perhaps this belongs in another thread, but I was trying to buy Graham Greene's Our Man in Havana the other day through ebook. Couldn't. For some reason, the digital rights for that book do not exist in the US. You know what countries you can buy it in?

If you read that list, bless you. If you didn't, let me put a quick highlight on some countries. Timor-Leste, Palestinian Territory, the Holy See, Iran, Republic of Korea, and..... Democratic People's Republic of Korea. I can buy it in NORTH Korea, but I can't in the US.  We have got to get our distribution laws and contracts figured out. I hear people complaining all the time about not being able to view content on US sites because they are non-US based, but holy hell.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrTyres 

The specific, non-inflammatory point I made in my email is that it's punishing the wrong people, like search engines. The House bill is a good bit worse than the Senate's, both of which I read this afternoon.  At one point, it talked about fining and shutting down any foreign websites that traffic in copywrited materials and offered anything (even legitimate services) directed at the US.   As an English teacher, I push my kids to pick up free ebooks whenever possible. There is a website that I use that has US public domain etexts. However, it also serves other non-American countries that have different copywrite and public domain laws. For example, The Great Gatsby is still under copywrite in the US, but is currently not in Australia. That website could be fined and shut down (at least in the US) because it is offering a US copywrited work.

 

I love Youtube's active covers culture. I love what some of the people there do with popular songs. We don't do covers as much on a national scale, so I love that unpaid fans do their own versions. It has helped make some people famous and launched careers, but those people were not making profit off those songs.

 

Those are the things I see that can be stopped with this bill.

Here's the big picture:  It used to be the case, before betamax, cassette tapes and eventually digital media, that the owners of media content had exclusive access to the channels of distribution.  Once the technology to copy landed in the hands of consumers, the ability of content owners to control the distribution of their IP began to loosen incrementally.  Where once it was easy for content owners to control access to their works, and to easily identify when something was stolen and by whom, today it is sometimes impossible to do either.   We live in a world where piracy is easy, socially acceptable, and rampant.  The DMCA, written before the broadband age, attempted to create a balance between the protection of IP on the one hand, and space for innovation on the other.  But current law has proven inadequate to the task (consider the continued existence of Pirate Bay and Sidereel.com). 

There is room to shift some of the burden for policing piracy onto search engines, and advertising and payment providers.  They all benefit, to some extent, from the piracy ecosystem.  This bill is pretty sloppily written though, and I think certain clauses will need to be more clearly articulated in order to avoid unwanted collateral consequences.  But let me take a moment to respond to your concerns.

The site with the books presents an interesting issue.  Now, it's not exactly clear how the bill would work in practice, but the way it's written my understanding is that only the portion of the site that displays the Great Gatsby would be blocked.  The forms of relief for content owners are limited to the sites, "or portion thereof," that are subject to a given court order.  In fact, it would have to be just that slice, since to qualify under the statute a site has to be either "primarily designed" to infringe, "have limited purpose other than" infringing, or be "marketed" for infringing uses.  I don't think the site as a whole would qualify.

As for covers, if a rights holder wanted those taken down, they could under existing law.  The likely reason they don't, other than Prince, is because it's bad PR.

So Wikipedia is going down to protest SOPA on Wednesday, along with Reddit and that site with the cat pictures.

This is all such a crock of shit.  There is so much misinformation and misunderstanding spreading through the collective consciousness like wildfire.  Let me give you a prime example, from Reddit:

"Congress is considering legislation that will dramatically change your Internet experience and put an end to reddit and many other sites you use everyday."

SOPA will "dramatically change" your Internet experience?  I'd like to know how.  Unless you're using Pirate Bay or streaming unlicensed content via the Sidereel.com's of the world, it's unlikely you will be affected at all.  SOPA does not create new rights for content owners, it creates new obligations for Internet intermediaries.  It does not expand copyrights, or diminish fair use.  If an act wasn't illicit prior to SOPA, it will not be illicit afterward.

Put an end to Reddit?  SOPA only applies to foreign websites, Reddit is a US site.

Has anyone given Lamar Smith credit for the manager's amendment that clarified and corrected most of the issues with the bill?  Nope.  I'm sorry but fuck everyone who wants to have an opinion but hasn't read the legislation.

The bill is crap and thankfully seems DOA.

It doesn't help these stupid bills when proponents defend them like MPAA chairman Chris Dodd saying that filteringwont be a problem since google figured it out when filtering content in China! (great example there)

The bill is technically idiotic too, it will block sites by DNS lookup. So real pirating sites will just use IPs, or even better people will start using DNS servers hosted outside the US. The bill also makes DNS resolution messy, there's no error code for CENSOREDDOMAIN, lookups will fail which some systems detect as a network failure or a security problem (hijacked name server)

We have enough idiocy with the DMCA, it hasn't solved anything and this won't solve anything either, just make the Internet more convoluted than necessary.

Forgot to add, this will be the death of ICANN if it passes, resulting in a new version of it outside of the US or worse, a Balkanized system that I'm sure places like China will love.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElCapitanAmerica 

The bill is crap and thankfully seems DOA.

 

It doesn't help these stupid bills when proponents defend them like MPAA chairman Chris Dodd saying that filteringwont be a problem since google figured it out when filtering content in China! (great example there)

 

The bill is technically idiotic too, it will block sites by DNS lookup. So real pirating sites will just use IPs, or even better people will start using DNS servers hosted outside the US. The bill also makes DNS resolution messy, there's no error code for CENSOREDDOMAIN, lookups will fail which some systems detect as a network failure or a security problem (hijacked name server)

 

We have enough idiocy with the DMCA, it hasn't solved anything and this won't solve anything either, just make the Internet more convoluted than necessary.

Forget the the DNS blocking, it's out of the bill. 

I know you know your Internet Capitan, so I'm curious why you think this won't solve anything?  The main thrust of the bill is giving rights holders the ability to stop the flow of money to sites like, say, Sidereel.com.

Will the bill stop every single piracy site?  No. 

Will it stop quite a few, and make it that much more inconvenient for your average person?  Yes.

And while the DMCA has its issues (the anti-circumvention provisions are a clusterfuck for fair-use), the notice-and-take-down has been pretty damn successful.  Most observers seem to quite like it, warts and all.  And shhh, don't tell anyone but it's probably an unconstitutional prior restraint of speech...

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElCapitanAmerica 

The bill is technically idiotic too, it will block sites by DNS lookup. So real pirating sites will just use IPs, or even better people will start using DNS servers hosted outside the US. The bill also makes DNS resolution messy, there's no error code for CENSOREDDOMAIN, lookups will fail which some systems detect as a network failure or a security problem (hijacked name server)

 

They won't even bother doing that. The big torrent sites are already switching to magnet links rather than torrent ones. Good luck doing DNS blocking to tracker-less torrents. With magnet links I could load the entirety of thepiratebay into I think a 4GB usb drive. The concept of The Big Bad Server that you can block and stop piracy is even more of a joke now than it's ever been. The law makers are so hopelessly clueless in these things it's kind of tragic watching them try.

Thankfully SOPA is dead in the water, at least in its disastrous original form. But PIPA is no less stupid. I don't see how it doesn't end to a maelstrom of litigation of epic proportions. It's going to make the patent law clusterfuck seem like paying a parking ticket.

Fun fact: SOPA means Shut Up in Greek. And PIPA is a slang term for the blowjob.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-ham/sopa-congress_b_1195598.html

Wow.  This guy has no clue what he's talking about, none at all.  If analysis like this is why you think SOPA would result in a torrent (pun intended) of litigation, then take a step back and breath.

The following are the two sections in SOPA that define what sites might be subject to litigation.  The first pertains to the Attorney General cause of action, the second pertains to the private cause of action.  Emphasis is mine.

For purposes of this section, a foreign Internet site is a ‘‘foreign infringing site’’ if—

 (1) the Internet site is a U.S.-directed site and is used by users in the United States; and

 (2) the Internet site is being operated in a manner that would, if it were a domestic Internet site, subject it (or its associated domain name) to—

 (A) seizure or forfeiture in the United States in an action brought by the Attorney General, by reason of an act prohibited by section 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2319B, or 2320, or chapter 90, of title 18, United States Code; or

(B) prosecution by the Attorney General under section 1204 of title 17, United States Code, by reason of a violation of section 1201

of such title.

Note:  There is nothing in the above that would subject a foreign website to a cause of action that would not be available if the site were based in the United States.

An Internet site is an ‘‘Internet site dedicated to theft of U.S. property’’ if—

 (A) it is—

 (i) a U.S.-directed site; or

(ii) an Internet site for which the registrant of the domain name used by the Internet site, and the owner or operator of the Internet site, are not located and cannot be found within the United States;

(B) the site is used by users within the United States; and

 (C) either—

 (i) the site is primarily designed or operated for the purpose of, has only limited purpose or use other than, or is marketed by its operator or another acting in concert with that operator primarily for use in, offering goods or services in violation of—

(I) section 501 of title 17, United States Code, for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, and with respect to infringement of complete or substantially complete works;

(II) section 1201 of title 17, United States Code; or

 (III) provisions of the Lanham Act that prohibit the sale, distribution, or promotion of goods, services, or materials bearing a counterfeit

mark, as that term is defined in sec21

tion 34(d) of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. 1116(d)) or section 2320 of title 18, United States Code; or

 (ii) the operator of the site operates the site with the object of promoting, or5has promoted, its use to carry out acts that constitute a violation of section 501 or 1201 of title 17, United States Code, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster such violation.

Note: While the above could use some additional work to make clear that copyright and trademark rights are not being expanded by this law, the above does not amount to an expansion these IP rights.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JuddL 

Forget the the DNS blocking, it's out of the bill. 

 

I know you know your Internet Capitan, so I'm curious why you think this won't solve anything?  The main thrust of the bill is giving rights holders the ability to stop the flow of money to sites like, say, Sidereel.com.

 

 

My main problem with SOPA was the whole messing around with DNS. It seems that after much ridicule, somebody told the bill sponsors how catastrophic this was going to be, how it hurts development of secure DNS, and how ineffective it will end up being.

So when I was talking in that previous post, I was assuming the DNS blocking measures were still in effect, I guess I hadn't caught up to the news ...

I'm not familiar with the financial stuff, but from what I read from EFF this still has provisions that impose added requirements to "information location tools" like search engines. I don't think it should be the responsibility of search engines to be liable in any way for linking information on the internet.

To me, the whole fiasco with DMCA and DeCSS showed how dangerous that anti-circumvention bit is.

I don't think it should be illegal for me to play or backup media that I purchased, the whole concept is fundamentally wrong.

Except that there are sites, in fact most of the big ones, where things get seriously muddied. What is a site with sitename.com registered in the US and sitename.de registerd in Germany? Foreign or domestic? What if it is hosted on something like Amazon or Akamai which have servers worldwide? It's the same site but I get mine from a server in Italy while you get yours from a server in Utah. And these are among the simplest cases. That infringing video I uploaded streams from Sweden for me but from North Carolina for you. We watch the same photos but from different parts of the world, with different ads from different affiliates.

The people who wrote that do not know how the internet works. 

The people who wrote that would have their own sites banned from the web!

"Congressman Lamar Smith, SOPA Author, Is a Copyright Violator"

http://www.geekosystem.com/sopa-author-copyright-violator/

Here's the list of blackout sites for tomorrow for those interested;

http://sopastrike.com/

Didn't know wordpress and mozilla were joining in too ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElCapitanAmerica 

The people who wrote that would have their own sites banned from the web!

 

"Congressman Lamar Smith, SOPA Author, Is a Copyright Violator"

http://www.geekosystem.com/sopa-author-copyright-violator/

That's not true.

A) His site is a domestic site

B) Even if it were a foreign site, it does not fit within the following definition: the site is primarily designed or operated for the purpose of, has only limited purpose or use other than, or is marketed by its operator or another acting in concert with that operator primarily for use in, offering goods or services in violation of—

(I) section 501 of title 17, United States Code, for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, and with respect to infringement of complete or substantially complete works;

See, this is what I mean about people commenting who don't understand current law or the current legislation.  It's been really fascinating, frustrating, and somewhat disappointing, as someone who has followed these bills closely for work.

@Stelios, it's pretty straight forward:

The term ‘‘domestic domain name’’ means a domain name that is registered or assigned by a domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name registration authority, that is located within a judicial district of the United States.

The term ‘‘foreign domain name’’ means a domain name that is not a domestic domain name.

Doesn't that language still seem incredibly vague? I mean...it seems like YouTube could be considered in violation of the legislation, depending on how you interpret the language. And if you consider the fact that a website is probably more likely not to take chances at all, this seems like it has a monumental potential for abuse.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JuddL 

@Stelios, it's pretty straight forward:

The term ‘‘domestic domain name’’ means a domain name that is registered or assigned by a domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name registration authority, that is located within a judicial district of the United States.

 

The term ‘‘foreign domain name’’ means a domain name that is not a domestic domain name.

 

Their definition of "domestic domain name" is flawed;

http://blog.easydns.org/2011/12/22/how-sopa-will-destroy-the-internet/

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Prankster 

Doesn't that language still seem incredibly vague? I mean...it seems like YouTube could be considered in violation of the legislation, depending on how you interpret the language. And if you consider the fact that a website is probably more likely not to take chances at all, this seems like it has a monumental potential for abuse.

The bill seems to have been drafted without proper technical consultation. I think this is part of the reason it's dying badly, the whole thing is embarrassing for the proponents. The fact that they were mandating these DNS changes in the first place, without even taking into account the work going on for DNSSEC (making DNS more robust) is hard to even comprehend.

And you know what, this is being driven by companies that have no business dictating how the internet should work. So no, I don't trust their vague language and don't forgive the technical inaccuracies in their bill. A flawed law is guaranteed to be abused by these industries to the detriment of the internet and its users.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElCapitanAmerica 

Their definition of "domestic domain name" is flawed;

 

http://blog.easydns.org/2011/12/22/how-sopa-will-destroy-the-internet/

 

 

 

Yea, but what that dude doesn't understand is that "domestic domain name" is defined in light of current law .  It's one of the problems with current cyber-space jurisprudence and one of the reason much of the world would like to see authority over the Internet transferred from ICANN to an international body.  If you are registered through .com, we can get jurisdiction over your site by default, since the .com registry is VeriSign, which is located in Va.  Doesn't matter if you're some shmo in Croatia.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JuddL 

Yea, but what that dude doesn't understand is that "domestic domain name" is defined in light of current law .  It's one of the problems with current cyber-space jurisprudence and one of the reason much of the world would like to see authority over the Internet transferred from ICANN to an international body.  If you are registered through .com, we can get jurisdiction over your site by default, since the .com registry is VeriSign, which is located in Va.  Doesn't matter if you're some shmo in Croatia.

 

If you can already get jurisdiction over domestic domain names, why don't you use that law to shut down the piratebay.ORG <---  without new stupid laws?

I'm not entirely sure, although I had the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) in mind, which offers relief in limited circumstances.  With that said, ICE has been seizing foreign sites over infringement for a couple years now: http://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/news-media-law/news-media-and-law-spring-2011/seizing-websites-protect-co

thepiratebay.org

rapidshare.com

megaupload.com

All "domestic domain" names which means SOPA/PIPA doesn't apply to them, but these are exactly the type of sites the proponents say they want to target!

BTW will SOPA make it illegal for me to write the domain name? In this case, does it make chud.com liable?

Judd, did you write this? 

Quote:

Originally Posted by TzuDohNihm 

Judd, did you write this? 

:P

"It also allows them to point out any site they even suspect might enable or facilitate copyright theft."

Again, 100% false.  There was language in the original draft of SOPA which could be interpreted to mean the above, although it was just sloppy drafting.  This is the language I had in mind when I wrote earlier in the thread: "The bill definitely has its issues, many of which I expect to be hammered out before it passes."  That language was eliminated a month ago by a manager's amendment and no one seems to have noticed.

@Capitan, no it's not illegal to post the name of a website.  Nice catch though on the "domestic domain name" definition.  I think the contradiction is due to differences between the bill as originally drafted and the manager's amendment.  These things tend ("tend", but not necessarily) to get hammered out during the legislative process.

Is this the manager's amendment you keep referring to?

http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/HR%203261%20Managers%20Amendment.pdf

That's the one!

It begins.

A list of participants.

Again, JuddL you keep debating this on a basis of legal merit and proper wording. This is not a debate on how well written these bills are. You're a lawyer (I think) and I'm an engineer so I'll take your word for it.

The big problem is that these bills mess with the way the internet works in a fundamental, technical level. Putting the content and the possibility of widespread censorship aside, they have the capability to degrade and at times incapacitate large parts of the network. Wouldn't you object to laws being passed concerning the way courts work if you could clearly see that the ones writing them only know about law from Matlock and Law and Order? 

The problem is the original bill started making crazy technical suggestions, and you don't change how DNS works with legalese, you propose a change with a technical spec. That's one of the fundamental problems with this bill, that and ill defined "foreign" and "local" domain names. The irony stands, the website everybody uses as an example is thepiratebay.org and as has been pointed out, under the definition of this bill it is a local domain ... so why are they even proposing this crap?!?!

I'm reading the manager's amendment, but to be honest it's a bit though to wade through all the legalese. The bill sponsors say there's no more DNS blocking in it, but I really want to double check that myself. In my view, the bill backers and the industries pushing for this have earned all the distrust in the world. Which is reason enough to delay or just outright kill this bill at the moment.

I'm glad google and wikipedia are bringing attention to this btw. Should be a lesson to the entertainment industry, who is doing very well in this economic downturn yet is pestering us with this.

(facebook, you suck)

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElCapitanAmerica 

(facebook, you suck)

As if I needed more reasons to ignore that pile of shit. I mean I get Google not completely blacking out. Way too many businesses depend on them to work. But fucking facebook? The very definition of worthless navel gazing couldn't black out for a few hours? Twitter can go fuck itself, too.

And wikipedia earned a lifetime of subscriptions from me.

Lame sites that didn't even bother to put a pixel in protest;

Facebook

Twitter

Bing

Quote:

Originally Posted by stelios 

Again, JuddL you keep debating this on a basis of legal merit and proper wording. This is not a debate on how well written these bills are. You're a lawyer (I think) and I'm an engineer so I'll take your word for it.

 

The big problem is that these bills mess with the way the internet works in a fundamental, technical level. Putting the content and the possibility of widespread censorship aside, they have the capability to degrade and at times incapacitate large parts of the network. Wouldn't you object to laws being passed concerning the way courts work if you could clearly see that the ones writing them only know about law from Matlock and Law and Order? 

I'm a soon-to-be graduate :)  But I work part-time for a boutique IP firm in DC, and part of my job has been following these competing bills closely.  I read the white paper by Steve Crocker, over a month ago, and I was at the Senate Judiciary Hearing on SOPA.  For all the railing against legislators that are out of their depth, the sponsors of the bill made it clear that no one wanted to be known as the Congress that "broke the Internet".  Since then, sponsors of both bills have announced they would remove those provisions from the legislation.

I'm curious, does anyone know how the UK's cleanfeed system works?  By asking this, I'm not suggesting we adopt a US variety.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElCapitanAmerica 

Lame sites that didn't even bother to put a pixel in protest;

 

Facebook

Twitter

Bing

I'd argue there's more value in Twitter and Facebook staying live to spread word about the various protests than in them going dark.

Bing should just go dark on general principle.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Dickson 

I'd argue there's more value in Twitter and Facebook staying live to spread word about the various protests than in them going dark.

 

Bing should just go dark on general principle.

Google didn't "go dark".

Wired figured out a way to do this that's pretty neat too;

http://www.wired.com/

But by their very nature, Twitter and Facebook are going to be awash with discussion and commentary on this today.  I just can't get worked up about them not doing something further to mark the occasion when their very existence is enabling awareness of it.

I don't think it's a big deal, and the twitter CEO was misinterpreted in his original comments (people though he was criticizing wikipedia, he wasn't). But to be quite honest, I think Google shows more responsibility here, while not shutting down, making a clear statement.

The twitter folks have been pretty vocal on this, but I thought they could have done more. You are right that by its very nature it raises awareness.

Facebook ... I'm not so sure. And here's where most clueless internet users are hanging out ... it's a missed opportunity. (Would have been great to see an anti-SOPA image on this page for example http://www.facebook.com/LamarSmithTX21 )

The rats are abandoning ship!

SOPA blackout leads co-sponsors to defect

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71589.html

Both SOPA and PIPA are losing sponsors left and right. Good job, internet! Keep it up.

But even if these bills die the death they deserve, don't forget to join us for round two. The one where their bosses have them add this nonsense to some "Won't someone please think of the children?" law.

Glad to see these bills dying the death they deserve. Fuck this bullshit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stelios 

Both SOPA and PIPA are losing sponsors left and right. Good job, internet! Keep it up.

 

But even if these bills die the death they deserve, don't forget to join us for round two. The one where their bosses have them add this nonsense to some "Won't someone please think of the children?" law.

That's the real danger right there.   The only way it can pass is as a rider to a must pass bill like extending unemployment benfits or raising the debt ceiling.

I'm not talking out of my ass here. It wasn't a joke. The talk is that there some sort of child protection bill coming up in the next months and they're going to try to add as much of this on it as they can. Everyone should stay on their toes because even the DNS nonsense is not really dead yet.

this makes me a bit angry....time to call your representatives...

Democrats have traditionally been chummy with Big Media.

They probably had a meeting and split the industries up. "You take Hollywood we take Oil. You take Silicon Valley we take Defense."

Hollywood has more pull with Republicans that I previously thought though. The bipartisanship on these bills was disgusting.

Everyone wants to be buddies with the cool kids. Who knows, if you get invited to enough parties you can bang some hot twenty year old starlet. Or convince Clooney to drop by your fundraiser.