SOPA talk, yo.

[Felstaff]

So... the Stop Online Piracy Act is currently running through congress, and a hearing is scheduled for today. If passed, the government could block an entire website that has a single page of pirated material. Theoretically, this could mean any social networking site that has an update, tweet, or user-generated content that infringes upon intellectual copyright could be blocked by the gubmint.

Pro-Skub SOPA

• RIAA
• MPAA
• Entertainment Industry powerhouses

Anti-SOPA

• Internet Start-up Venture Capitalists
• Eric Shmidt
• Facebook, Google, eBay, AOL, LinkedIn, Mozilla, Twitter, Yahoo!, Zynga...
• Pretty much the entire tech industry

I'm surprised there's not been much of a big deal made on this forum, unless I've missed it. It really is lobbyists from the entertainment industry on one side, and lobbyists from the tech industry on the other.

I know which camp I'm in. The bill would a.) not eliminate piracy and b.) strangle budding businesses with its horrifically badly thought-through legalese. I think the best quote comes from the Venture Capitalist guy I linked to above:

"These bills were written by the content industry without any input from the technology industry. And they are trying to fast track them through congress and into law without any negotiation with the technology industry."

Seeing as I've abandoned all pretensions of non-bias, there's an anti-SOPA website there, too. Seriously, the MPAA & RIAA can go fuck itself and lament on its failing business practices and outdated conservative business models, as its monopolised stranglehold over the media-paying public is swiftly losing its grip.

[Ghostbear]

I fear that SOPA's chances of passing are far greater than it should be (should be zero); for some reason that I've never understood, the entertainment industry has far more political power than its economic size would indicate. And the tech industry seems to wield less power than its economic size would indicate as well, which doesn't really help matters.

I remain cautiously optimistic that it'll end up being rejected, but I wouldn't be even remotely surprised if it was passed into law without significant opposition.

[Steax]

I have a strong suspicion that the entertainment industry has been skewed by their own interpretations of the web, and don't have a clue how it actually works. If the government is allowed to block off anything that infringes on copyright... oh dear, that's a lot of the internet under fire.

I mean, really. A single link? So if I have a blog with comments enabled, and I leave for work, and some guy posts a link to a pirated movie in the comments, they can go sue my blog and block it off from the US?

I totally don't see how anyone could abuse this.

[emceng]

I know which camp I'm in. The bill would a.) not eliminate piracy and b.) strangle budding businesses with its horrifically badly thought-through legalese.

On this point I'm afraid we'll get the standard idiotic over-reaching law response "Well of course you wouldn't get sued/arrested for that!" Essentially saying that yes the law is stupid and overbroad, but instead of fixing it, they just say - oh, we'll leave it to prosecutors to selectively enforce the law.

And, I guess one reason I don't want to discuss this law is that there is nothing to discuss. The RIAA et al. are making a power grab via bribing campaign contributions to Congress varmints. It's not new or surprising, and my only thoughts about it are rage over the undue influence wealth and corporations have on our political system.

[Odd_nonposter]

One of the other forums I read had a popup courtesy of http://americancensorship.org/.

I hate to infringe on the political stance of others, but if an admin wanted to spread awareness, then he/she/it could play with some code on this site...

edit: less-than-comprehensive infographic from the site above

Spoiler:

[LaserGuy]

This is actually pretty disturbing stuff. Michael Geist, the resident Canadian expert on IP law, notes that the law creates a sweeping jurisdiction for Internet enforcement.:

First, it defines a "domestic domain name" as 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." Since every dot-com, dot-net, and dot-org domain is managed by a domain name registry in the U.S., the law effectively asserts jurisdiction over tens of millions of domain names regardless of where the registrant actually resides.

Second, it defines "domestic Internet protocol addresses" - the numeric strings that constitute the actual address of a website or Internet connection - as "an Internet Protocol address for which the corresponding Internet Protocol allocation entity is located within a judicial district of the United States."

Yet IP addresses are allocated by regional organizations, not national ones. The allocation entity located in the U.S. is called ARIN, the American Registry for Internet Numbers. Its territory includes the U.S., Canada, and 20 Caribbean nations. This bill treats all IP addresses in this region as domestic for U.S. law purposes.

To put this is context, every Canadian Internet provider relies on ARIN for its block of IP addresses. In fact, ARIN even allocates the block of IP addresses used by federal and provincial governments. The U.S. bill would treat them all as domestic for U.S. law purposes.

In other words, this law is asserting US domestic jurisdiction over every .com, .org, and .net website, regardless of its actual physical location, and similarly includes every IP address in a host of other countries, and seeks to apply US law to those IP addresses even if those sites are performing a service that is perfectly legal within those jurisdictions.

[Inglonias]

Personally, even if the bill is passed, I don't think that the RIAA will immediately be able to block off Youtube or some such nonsense. If entire sites are taken down like that (Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, etc) then there would be a huge number of bored and angry people who now have nothing better to do than become activists. The worst part is that this wouldn't work. Trying to remove materials from the internet is damn near completely impossible to do.

If this law passes, it would be a serious problem for pretty much everybody, and it would only encourage backlash towards the music industry if they (in the worst case scenario) shut down Youtube.

[Lucrece]

Poor things, thinking they can stop the porn/movie/music download blogs/boards.

[nitePhyyre]

I, for one, want this bill to pass. It won't stop people from pirating. On the other hand, it will be fucking hilarious when Anon hacks into the White House and RIAA sites, posts a Rick-Roll, then get the government to shut those sites down.

[Decker]

I, for one, want this bill to pass. It won't stop people from pirating. On the other hand, it will be fucking hilarious when Anon hacks into the White House and RIAA sites, posts a Rick-Roll, then get the government to shut those sites down.

Yes. I'm sure that will change their minds.

[Game_boy]

I, for one, want this bill to pass. It won't stop people from pirating. On the other hand, it will be fucking hilarious when Anon hacks into the White House and RIAA sites, posts a Rick-Roll, then get the government to shut those sites down.

It will be selectively enforced. It has to be, because the scope is ridiculous. And I guess the ones least likely to be prosecuted are politicians putting news media on their own site without permission (happens all the time), and the record companies themselves.

[Gellert1984]

I, for one, want this bill to pass. It won't stop people from pirating. On the other hand, it will be fucking hilarious when Anon hacks into the White House and RIAA sites, posts a Rick-Roll, then get the government to shut those sites down.

It will be selectively enforced. It has to be, because the scope is ridiculous. And I guess the ones least likely to be prosecuted are politicians putting news media on their own site without permission (happens all the time), and the record companies themselves.

No. Nononononononononono. It'll be select politicians depending on which state you're in, republicans will ban democrats and democrats will ban republicans, possibly everyone will ban conservopedia...

Edit: Didnt we see similar crap with the Aussies internet blacklist, the bunch in power were trying to sneak in pro-opposition websites?

[Dauric]

I, for one, want this bill to pass. It won't stop people from pirating. On the other hand, it will be fucking hilarious when Anon hacks into the White House and RIAA sites, posts a Rick-Roll, then get the government to shut those sites down.

It will be selectively enforced. It has to be, because the scope is ridiculous. And I guess the ones least likely to be prosecuted are politicians putting news media on their own site without permission (happens all the time), and the record companies themselves.

No. Nononononononononono. It'll be select politicians depending on which state you're in, republicans will ban democrats and democrats will ban republicans, possibly everyone will ban conservopedia...

Edit: Didnt we see similar crap with the Aussies internet blacklist, the bunch in power were trying to sneak in pro-opposition websites?

Even outside of politics though (If I understand the bill correctly), it requires someone to accuse the site host of posting copyrighted material for the bureaucratic process of banning the site to begin. Sites like Facebook have big law teams that can fight the RIAA or the MPAA, but if I host "MovieFan.Net" out of my basement on a small server and some visitor posts a link to a Youtube clip from Michael Bay's "More Explosions Exploding", the RIAA can sue me to shut down my IP, which if my server is hosting more than just MovieFan.net, but "MyUnrelatedBusiness.com", then my business site gets blocked as well.

And the double-kicker there is that they can sue me because my site had the link, but they don't need to involve Youtube that is actually hosting the clip in question. They can discreetly not address Youtube's status as the content host, which I believe means that Youtube doesn't have standing to be involved in my lawsuit, so the MPAA or RIAA doesn't need to tangle with someone with a sizable legal department.

Again, assuming I understand the bill, but this interpretation seems pretty much in keeping with their tactic of suing teenagers over music downloads.

[Radical_Initiator]

some visitor posts a link to a Youtube clip from Michael Bay's "More Explosions Exploding"

That movie sucked. Not enough Action Guys Not Watching the Explosions.

[Steax]

I, for one, want this bill to pass. It won't stop people from pirating. On the other hand, it will be fucking hilarious when Anon hacks into the White House and RIAA sites, posts a Rick-Roll, then get the government to shut those sites down.

Given how a copyright holder can force a site to be blocked without actually taking it to court, the best way is to create something copyrighted by yourself, then place it on their site. Then you can demand advertisers and search engines block them.

Poor things, thinking they can stop the porn/movie/music download blogs/boards.

This is basically my whole point of view.

A lot of tech people have been talking about why piracy is here to stay. Most of the time, the people who pirate your music/movies won't buy it legit anyway (or at least seriously consider not buying it). If they want people to go visit a brick and mortar shop to rent a DVD, even if they offer it for $5, most people would rather sit back at home and wait for it to download. The whole point is to make buying the legal stuff easier (*cough*iTunes*cough* ... and all the other music startups which will now die miserably every time they pop up).

[Triangle_Man]

So basically the government is going to pass a bill that will force people to follow a failed business model because the Entertainment Industry is completely set in it's ways, which basically means that I have damned every website I visit to digital hell because I have posted technically copyrighted images on them sometimes in the past?

There is no way that the entire internet won't be censored as a result of this. Except for probably a few lucky websites and every single corporate websi-

...

...

No, that's too much of a paranoid theory.

Also, I imagine that most people won't care until they wake up one day and find that all of their favorite websites have been blocked in accordance with this new bill.

Does it affect Canada?

[LaserGuy]

So basically the government is going to pass a bill that will force people to follow a failed business model because the Entertainment Industry is completely set in it's ways, which basically means that I have damned every website I visit to digital hell because I have posted technically copyrighted images on them sometimes in the past?

There is no way that the entire internet won't be censored as a result of this. Except for probably a few lucky websites and every single corporate websi-

...

...

No, that's too much of a paranoid theory.

More likely, if this law starts seriously impacting anyone's bottom line, you'll see a massive exodus of sites and companies away from domains/ips under American control.

[Triangle_Man]

Because we all know that depriving someone of the ability to make money is the only way to initate any lasting change in this world nowadays.

I say this without any sarcasm...

[CorruptUser]

Zachory Wiener's take on it.

Thanks Yurell for giving me a good old fashioned face-palm.

Does it affect Canada?

Yes, in that websites that are currently making a small profit or rely on donations to pay server costs will struggle or disappear. The world is connected like that.

politicians putting news media on their own site without permission (happens all the time)

Oh man, I just had the best fantasy involving the D.C. police department arresting nearly everyone in Congress and the Senate as soon as the bill passed...

[yurell]

You can just type the comic number to get it in the archive format:

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db ... 2434#comic

[Djehutynakht]

Hm... someone talked to me about it possibly being unconstitutional. Anyone know anything about that? I can't be bothered to read through the bill clutching my tiny handheld copy of the US Constitution.

Anyways, this seems like they're attempting, to quote the comics, to do the equivalent of attempting to herd lolcats. Anyways, it may definately cause a row. The tech industry I assume has pretty influential lobbying power. Plus you just have the vast internet mobs of hatred-potential.

I recommend, if you wish to affect this, try calling/writing your representative and/or senator. Someone does actually recieve and consider this information. It's freaky.

[Steax]

More likely, if this law starts seriously impacting anyone's bottom line, you'll see a massive exodus of sites and companies away from domains/ips under American control.

The real problem will be when other countries start following the US ("hey, the US did that and it helped their entertainment industry, we should totally do that too [and kill the opposition at the same time]").

[Velict]

I'm surprised there's not been much of a big deal made on this forum, unless I've missed it. It really is lobbyists from the entertainment industry on one side, and lobbyists from the tech industry on the other.

What would the debate be?

"I'm strongly against SOPA!"
"I'm very strongly against SOPA!"

Seriously though, I'm very strongly against SOPA. Does anyone know if the Obama administration has made any comments?

[Magnanimous]

Apparently it was repealed 52-46. Yay.

Seriously though, I'm very strongly against SOPA. Does anyone know if the Obama administration has made any comments?

Obama has specifically said that he would veto it... So there's that.

[LaserGuy]

Huffington Post seems to be suggesting that the bill has bipartisan support, and appears likely to pass in the Senate. The House Bill could easily pass as well. The House bill apparently includes an amendment that would make streaming of copyrighted songs a felony.

[Ghostbear]

Apparently it was repealed 52-46. Yay.

Seriously though, I'm very strongly against SOPA. Does anyone know if the Obama administration has made any comments?

Obama has specifically said that he would veto it... So there's that.

Wrong bill- Net Neutrality and SOPA are completely separate.

Seriously though, I'm very strongly against SOPA. Does anyone know if the Obama administration has made any comments?

I haven't seen any comments by the administration, though I recall reading a year or two ago that Biden had strong ties to the entertainment industry, and was generally supportive of stronger copyright protection. Whether Biden's opinion matters (or what his opinion on this is) at all is something I do not know. Looking at the political position, I don't think Obama has made very many veto threats, and he has only used his veto power twice. I believe he also has strong support from both the entertainment and tech industries; I don't think it'd be anywhere near a safe bet to expect him to veto it if it passes congress. I think the best hope is either that support outside of the sponsors isn't sufficient, or that it gets filibustered in the senate.

[Steax]

Wrong bill- Net Neutrality and SOPA are completely separate.

Thanks for that, I was getting utterly confused. Can anyone clear up all the name confusions going around here? What exactly is Protect-IP, and how is it both the same as and not SOPA?

[Ghostbear]

Wrong bill- Net Neutrality and SOPA are completely separate.

Thanks for that, I was getting utterly confused. Can anyone clear up all the name confusions going around here? What exactly is Protect-IP, and how is it both the same as and not SOPA?

From what I can gather, Protect-IP is the senate version of SOPA, with SOPA being the house's version. Both deal with copyright enforcement and protection on the internet, mainly to try to prevent people from downloading movies or music (the two most strongly represented lobbies) online. Most people (dare I say, the reasonable ones) find the laws both an overly draconian approach and ultimately futile. The US has passed laws before trying to accomplish the same thing (e.g. the DMCA), and piracy is still a huge (and probably larger than before) part of the internet.

Net Neutrality is unrelated to copyright, at least directly. It deals with forcing internet service providers to, essentially, treat all bits as equal. Without net neutrality, there'd be nothing stopping them from blocking, restricting, or slowing down services that compete with their own. I think there are some exceptions for basic network management, but the general idea still holds. As an example, a company like Comcast, which provides cable TV and a VoIP service along with their internet service, could restrict Netflix or Skype access (and there are many ways they could do this), either absolutely, or unless customers (or the company in question) pay some extra fees.

Net Neutrality currently isn't "law" in the traditional sense; the FCC has, somewhat recently, made some regulation(s) enforcing it. Republicans feel it's an overreach of power on behalf of the FCC, Democrats do not. So Republicans tried to get through congress a law that would have prevented the FCC from enforcing net neutrality. Support and opposition to that basically fell completely along party lines, which I think is somewhat worrying, as it means if the Republicans are in a position to appoint the next group of FCC commissioners, they could remove the net neutrality regulations again. But net neutrality is a different topic for a different thread.

Any of that help?

[Steax]

That makes sense, yes. The Net Neutrality one confused me because I assumed the FCC wanted to allow companies to disregard neutrality. So basically Protect-IP and SOPA are going in parallel, with SOPA being closer to reality, right?

And yeah, this is only going to make piracy even worse. I wouldn't be surprised if some new mechanism came out to support piracy, and that mechanism undermines even more security and copyright stuff.

[Dauric]

That makes sense, yes. The Net Neutrality one confused me because I assumed the FCC wanted to allow companies to disregard neutrality. So basically Protect-IP and SOPA are going in parallel, with SOPA being closer to reality, right?

And yeah, this is only going to make piracy even worse. I wouldn't be surprised if some new mechanism came out to support piracy, and that mechanism undermines even more security and copyright stuff.

For any law to be enacted it has to pass both in the Senate and the House. If both SOPA and P-IP pass then the bills go in to a committee that unifies the two bills in to a single bill with the same language, that revised bill then goes back to the senate and the house for final passage.

[Heisenberg]

And then the President has to sign the bill into law.

Personally, while I don't have any faith in old white guys' ability to understand the internet and ignore the lobbyists they're beholden to, I would really hope that President Obama would take out his red pen and write Fuck this Fucking Fuck Shit (Veto) at the bottom.

Does anyone know if the White House has a position?

[Lostdreams]

So basically the government is going to pass a bill that will force people to follow a failed business model because the Entertainment Industry is completely set in it's ways, which basically means that I have damned every website I visit to digital hell because I have posted technically copyrighted images on them sometimes in the past?

There is no way that the entire internet won't be censored as a result of this. Except for probably a few lucky websites and every single corporate websi-

...

...

No, that's too much of a paranoid theory.

More likely, if this law starts seriously impacting anyone's bottom line, you'll see a massive exodus of sites and companies away from domains/ips under American control.

Nigerian prince made millions on website domain sales and wants to give you some money! Also, Russian brides now employed as tech support for local domain hosts.

[Mechanicus]

For any law to be enacted it has to pass both in the Senate and the House. If both SOPA and P-IP pass then the bills go in to a committee that unifies the two bills in to a single bill with the same language, that revised bill then goes back to the senate and the house for final passage.

That is true, but bear in mind that the bill is still in its infancy right now. It's not even out of subcommittee yet. Once it comes out, it has to go through the House Judiciary committee and hearings will be called by both minority and majority parties. The committee then decides whether the bill is to be amended in committee, sent straight to the floor of the House or amended by the committee - this is the point to contact committee members.

If they amend the bill too much, it'll be rewritten completely from scratch. It then goes to the floor of the House where it is debated, possibly sent back to committee, passed or rejected and depending on what the rules committee says it may be amended - contact your representatives throughout this process. Politicians listen more to people who have a track record of contacting them on an issue.

Then the whole affair has to be repeated in the Senate and go through the process you describe.

[drkslvr]

Talking is good, but we need to be talking to the right people. I just wrote my Representative in the House. You should, too.
--> https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

[theknownuniverse]

Talking is good, but we need to be talking to the right people. I just wrote my Representative in the House. You should, too.
--> https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

Living in New York's 3rd district, my representative is Peter King (the same guy who wanted to hold hearings on "Muslim radicalization" some months ago). He's also one of the sponsors of the bill. Would it be a waste of time to write to him? Should I just go straight for my senators and Obama?

[yurell]

Wouldn't hurt to write to him. The worst that can happen is you get virtually no response (a rude response is actually a good one, because it's something you can post up everywhere to show how horrible he is).

[emceng]

Did someone post this already : Linky linky link

Apologies if so, I am freaking exhausted. Otherwise - interesting info about the committee meetings + who schedules the speakers?

[Qaanol]

Here is the full text (pdf) of the bill, “H.R. 3261”, short title “Stop Online Piracy Act”, dated October 26, 2011. It is 72 pages long. I have not read the full text yet.

What do you think is a good way to structure a letter to one’s representative (and senator) on this issue? For instance, which of the following do you think would be productive:

1. State that you are a constituent.
1a. If applicable, state that you are a member of their party and/or voted for them.
1b. Complement your representative’s wisdom in having voted for some specific bill in the past that you support.
2. State that you oppose the SOPA bill.
2a. Briefly explain in one or two sentences why you oppose the bill.
3. Provide a long and comprehensive explanation for why you oppose the bill.
4. Explain how you think copyright laws should be reformed.
5. State that you have strong opinions on copyright law, and would like to meet your representative in person to discuss them.

What else would you include in such a letter?

[Joeldi]

Well, if you have any experience or qualifications in the area, you'd state them before heading into 5

[Djehutynakht]

Talking is good, but we need to be talking to the right people. I just wrote my Representative in the House. You should, too.
--> https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

Living in New York's 3rd district, my representative is Peter King (the same guy who wanted to hold hearings on "Muslim radicalization" some months ago). He's also one of the sponsors of the bill. Would it be a waste of time to write to him? Should I just go straight for my senators and Obama?

Yes. Senators work nicely... especially because combined they have 1/25th of the Senate Vote (1/50 of the total). Obama knows enough... there's a petition on whitehouse.gov.

Also, if enough of you write to King... he may back down. They tend to at least hear out constituents. Politicians are people who really, really like keeping their jobs.