Websites like Google and Wikipedia going black in protest of SOPA

[flamingreen]

Originally Posted by Rathji

I understand that, but the vast majority of people do not. Even if they did, they would have to have that IP address, which you wouldn't readily have if DNS entries were removed or poisoned.

I agree with you, it would effectively kill the website, whether it still exists or not.

[Regular_John]

Ahh didn't realize the DNS stuff had been dropped, from my end of things that was the scariest/most overbearing part. I'll admit I'm not well informed on the rest of it. But in general I think people want to keep the net as open as it's been for the last 15 years.

While online piracy is obviously a concern, I don't think anyone wants to see the online version of the FCC or CRTC determining what we can/can't publish online.

If you look at the regulation & control around television/radio broadcasting it's actually pretty mind blowing that the net has remained as open as it is.

[photon]

My question is what does SOPA do that they can't already do? They can shut down websites that host illegal material. They can sue a person for hundreds of thousands of dollars for downloading a song illegally.

What is in this legislation that they can't do now?

[kirant]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

Apparently there's some dispute over this IIRC.
Some news articles quote as "dropped" but if you actually read the quote, it's removed for further study... so delayed until they pass the bill then they can ram it down your throat later when a "study" is done. Sneaky lawyer speak really.

It still sounds like it needs to pass committee if they do decide to re-introduce that. With some of the voices in committee, they'll probably ask REAL tech experts to come in this time to explain DNS to them. I think (and hope. It is a major concern to me for the bill as it's ham fisted and ineffective) that part will never see the light of day again.

Originally Posted by photon

My question is what does SOPA do that they can't already do? They can shut down websites that host illegal material. They can sue a person for hundreds of thousands of dollars for downloading a song illegally.

What is in this legislation that they can't do now?

Foreign websites. That's the biggest one.

It also tries to be an update the DCMA so that it's less useless...not like it'll do much better.

The process for getting DCMA based complaints through (I think) is that you must request a removal for each individual file, where as SOPA goes after the website itself. I'm not familiar with the law that lets them currently strip down websites.

[FlameOn]

Here's Reddit's technical examination of SOPA
http://blog.reddit.com/2012/01/techn...-sopa-and.html

Techdirt with another analysis
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...ad-ideas.shtml

While people like Lamar Smith have indicated DNS provisions "will be removed for further study", they have not been officially dropped from the bill atm.

[Ironhorse]

It sounds like SOPA could also force the shutdown of otherwise legitimate websites (ie forums) where the site owner cannot guarantee that there are provisions in place to prevent people linking to copyrighted material.

If the Attorney General served reddit with an order to remove links to a domain, we would be required to scrub every post and comment on the site containing the domain and censor the links out, even if the specific link contained no infringing content. We would also need to implement a system to automatically censor the domain from any future posts or comments. This places a measurable burden upon the site's technical infrastructure. It also damages one of the most important tenets of reddit, and the internet as a whole – free and open discussion about whatever the #### you want.

[photon]

Originally Posted by troutman

I do have relatives in the movie industry, and I know how big a concern piracy is to them. We all know people who have hundreds (if not thousands) of movies and cds that they have not paid for.

What would be appropriate protection for copyright holders? Right now it seems to be a free-for-all.

First the question is do they need protection in the first place? Some people will ALWAYS steal what they want regardless, so that's not an issue of lost revenue because if the person couldn't steal the item they wouldn't have it anyway. The lost revenue argument is flawed IMO.

Second, the reason people have those things is simply ease. Companies punish their real customers, place obstacle after obstacle in their path, and set the price point higher because of "lost revenues". Path of least resistance, when it's 100x easier to pirate, that's what people will do. If I want to watch the same movie on a different device I have to purchase it again, or go through some convoluted process which gets me a file that is difficult to work with, can't be ported to non-supported devices, and has the chance of being completely unusable if a company decides to stop supporting their DRM (which has already happened).

Look at iTunes, they made it easier to buy than to pirate, and added features to make it even more compelling (automatically loading on all your iDevices, the match service etc), etc.

Look at Steam, people complain about steam sales because they buy so much that they can't possibly even play all the games they own. The music industry tries to sue people for stupid amounts due to them having something they didn't pay for, while Valve and the publishers are making money from people buying things they don't even play just because it's so easy and the perceived value is so high.

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by kirant

It still sounds like it needs to pass committee if they do decide to re-introduce that. With some of the voices in committee, they'll probably ask REAL tech experts to come in this time to explain DNS to them. I think (and hope. It is a major concern to me for the bill as it's ham fisted and ineffective) that part will never see the light of day again.

Even if the provisions for DNS are removed, you're still going to end up with some other replacement system like maybe the way DMCA domains are seized. We'll have those annoying homeland security warning messages ala ATDHE.net. Given this bill throws fair use and due process out the window, this bill is still bad news

[kirant]

Originally Posted by photon

Look at iTunes, they made it easier to buy than to pirate, and added features to make it even more compelling (automatically loading on all your iDevices, the match service etc), etc.

As much as I agree lost revenue is a somewhat flawed statement, I do have to point out it's still just as easy to pirate as it is to legally find. As someone who used to do this all the time, all you need are the name of the song, MP3, and download on Google and you'll find many links to the correct song.

Originally Posted by FlameOn

Even if the provisions for DNS are removed, you're still going to end up with some other replacement system like maybe the way DMCA domains are seized. We'll have those annoying homeland security warning messages ala ATDHE.net. Given this bill throws fair use and due process out the window, this bill is still bad news

I certainly don't disagree that nothing GOOD will come out of it. The desired result won't come out of it without a doubt.

[BurningYears]

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by kirant

As much as I agree lost revenue is a somewhat flawed statement, I do have to point out it's still just as easy to pirate as it is to legally find. As someone who used to do this all the time, all you need are the name of the song, MP3, and download on Google and you'll find many links to the correct song.

Still, I would need to use a computer and often a program to download it (torrent/p2p software), import that song into my iTunes and sync the device. You can buy something on iTunes using your phone, while on the bus, and have the content delivered in seconds.

[kirant]

Originally Posted by BurningYears

I think the problem I have with that gif is that it over-simplifies the problem. The issue is court order and I can't see a court agreeing to deny a website on the basis that its gifs have copyrighted material in them. Of course, I'm oversimplifying the other way too. There will be gray area if this passes, for sure. Personally, going at the "unintended consequences" does seem redundant at this point...it will certainly happen.

Originally Posted by Rathji

Still, I would need to use a computer and often a program to download it (torrent/p2p software), import that song into my iTunes and sync the device. You can buy something on iTunes using your phone, while on the bus, and have the content delivered in seconds.

Very true. I'm not one for using an iPhone or any online capabilities with an iPod. All my material to mine come from access to a computer via importing to iTunes.

[TheyCallMeBruce]

Originally Posted by kirant

As much as I agree lost revenue is a somewhat flawed statement, I do have to point out it's still just as easy to pirate as it is to legally find. As someone who used to do this all the time, all you need are the name of the song, MP3, and download on Google and you'll find many links to the correct song.

Well, easier to the general public. My dad isn't aware of googling song.mp3, but he is aware of itunes. It would be much easier for him to download from itunes and have it uploaded to his ipod. It's just a matter of a few steps and he's good to go.

Even with googling a particular song would still require some savvy. Sometimes you are directed to sites that do not host the correct file, sometimes there is a risk of accessing a phishing or malware site. itunes takes the guess work out of that for being safe, reliable, and affordable.

[kirant]

Originally Posted by TheyCallMeBruce

Well, easier to the general public. My dad isn't aware of googling song.mp3, but he is aware of itunes. It would be much easier for him to download from itunes and have it uploaded to his ipod. It's just a matter of a few steps and he's good to go.

Oh definately. I don't take that into account though because that part of the population generally isn't at risk of pirating either though. It generally is the tech savvy who engage in it.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by kirant

I think the problem I have with that gif is that it over-simplifies the problem. The issue is court order and I can't see a court agreeing to deny a website on the basis that its gifs have copyrighted material in them. Of course, I'm oversimplifying the other way too. There will be gray area if this passes, for sure. Personally, going at the "unintended consequences" does seem redundant at this point...it will certainly happen.

But it isn't always a court order.

There is a provision to allow "qualifying plaintiffs" to issue the demand and regardless of merit it must be adhered to within 5 days.

The DMCA has a similar mechanism and it has been abused over and over again; and the DMCA has more safeguards than this legislation.

This notification provision mirrors closely § 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), but leaves out certain safe harbors that had been carefully negotiated as part of the drafting of the DMCA over a decade ago. For this reason alone, many copyright practitioners, copyright owners, educators and businesses have opposed the introduction of SOPA, claiming that the bill as currently drafted undermines the protections that have been part of copyright law for the last decade. Some have also claimed that the notification provisions fail to impose certain safeguards that could prevent frivolous litigation or blatantly baseless claims – yet still require the intermediaries to disable access within 5 days of receipt of the notification, perhaps leading to the irreversible loss of income and consumer goodwill by a U.S.-based commercial web site engaged in legitimate operations.

http://privacyandip.blogspot.com/201...oduced-to.html

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by troutman

This thread has been educational for me - I was not aware how far reaching this was.

I do have relatives in the movie industry, and I know how big a concern piracy is to them. We all know people who have hundreds (if not thousands) of movies and cds that they have not paid for.

What would be appropriate protection for copyright holders? Right now it seems to be a free-for-all.

DMCA. If the various industries put one one-hundredth of the resources into properly applying the DMCA and innovating their businesses around consumer demand they wouldn't have a problem. I'm not convinced they actually have a problem.

Piracy is not a larger problem now than it was in the past. From hand copying sheet music in the 1800's, dubbing cassettes, dentist's and hair salons playing the radio for customers and not paying royalties, recording the Sunday movie to VHS and watching it more than once, taping a song off the radio or borrowing a book from a friend to read, we all have infringed in some way at some point in our life.

Have you downloaded sheet music or tabs to play on guitar? Have you played guitar and sung for a group of people? Did you pay SOCAN, BMI or ASCAP?

Your fair use comment earlier is interesting. Fair use doesn't give you the right to use copyrighted material (it's still copyrighted), it allows you to defend yourself against copyright claims.

[photon]

And that's the problem, companies are trying to fix the pirating problem (the escaped lion) by targeting their regular customers (BBQ kittens).

If 95% of the population isn't savvy enough to pirate then it's not a problem anyway.

If it is such a huge problem that eve the non-savvy can pirate, then they have to make buying and owning just as easy and do things to make it better (like Apple does).

And then for the top percentage piraters treat it like any other criminal activity.. evidence, court, charges, etc. Which wouldn't require any further legislation.

They just want the new legislation so they can abuse it like they do the DMCA already.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Barnes

Your fair use comment earlier is interesting. Fair use doesn't give you the right to use copyrighted material (it's still copyrighted), it allows you to defend yourself against copyright claims.

That and lack of due process allows for abuse of the DMCA to scare fair use users into backing off just because they can't take on the 8,000lb gorilla.

And Canada's proposed legislation is even worse, fair use is basically meaningless, because the use might be fair but breaking a digital lock to get at the stuff to use is still illegal.

[FlameOn]

What really bugs me is US Congress, instead of tackling the economic problems and revitalize the US economy (and perhaps worldwide economy), chooses to pander to lobby groups. Budget time comes, no one in Congress can come up with a solution. RIAA pushes a new bill and offers millions in campaign contributions and you have line-ups of Congressmen from both parties lining up the co-sponsor the bloody thing regardless of the any potential world-wide economic damage it would cause.

[kirant]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

But it isn't always a court order.

There is a provision to allow "qualifying plaintiffs" to issue the demand and regardless of merit it must be adhered to within 5 days.

The DMCA has a similar mechanism and it has been abused over and over again; and the DMCA has more safeguards than this legislation.


http://privacyandip.blogspot.com/201...oduced-to.html

Interesting. Reading her post right now and am trying to correlate it with the bill's text. I'm having a hard time finding the exact provision for this in the article under the text of section 103. Do you know what exact points she is refering to?