The Coming War on General Purpose Computation

[Ixtellor]

I also do not know how likely the above scenario is under the legislation.

As likely as piracy destroying the music industry, imho.

Any, and every law, can and will be abused. Its the frequency that matters. I predict an insignificant amount of abuse. Others predict rampant abuse.

I totally agree that the laws abuse should be policed closely and any problems resolved with great diligence.

So for all of those how believe piracy is wrong(would love to know what % of xkcd'ers do) we are debating X or the frequency of abuse.

[The Great Hippo]

As likely as piracy destroying the music industry, imho.

Any, and every law, can and will be abused. Its the frequency that matters. I predict an insignificant amount of abuse. Others predict rampant abuse.

See, this is where I'm saying your critical thinking is questionable; an excellent predictor as to whether or not a law will be abused to any significant degree is how easy it is to abuse that law.

On what grounds are you predicting an insignificant amount of abuse? On the grounds that noisy alarmists you don't like are predicting a significant amount? That isn't a reasonable metric (it's a reverse of 'appeal to authority'; because Hitler says 2 + 2 = 4, it must be 5). If you're actually curious--if you want to discuss the issue with any significant force--why not read the legislation? If the legalese is a bit too obfuscating (which is a completely reasonable complaint), why not find someone for whom it isn't too confusing and listen to their opinion? Someone who isn't being paid--in financial or political currency--to support this law? What do American experts on digital and internet law who are outside of the situation say about this policy? Are you looking up their opinions? Can you post those opinions here?

I can't take anything you're saying here seriously because you are a non-expert complaining about a (I assume) non-expert and assuming that because the non-expert has an opinion, it must be wrong.

[Ixtellor]

See, this is where I'm saying your critical thinking is questionable; an excellent predictor as to whether or not a law will be abused to any significant degree is how easy it is to abuse that law.

False Premise.

Here are some laws that are extremely easy to abuse - all you have to do is say it.
Rape accusations. Probable cause. Reasonable Suspicion. Clear and Present Danger. Child Abuse. Disorderly Conduct. Malpractice. Commercial Speech. Cyber Bulling. Libel and Slander.

I think your approaching this law with a 1950's mentality when you could in fact be locked up for being a communist. The world has advanced and in a western democracy is a far more civil and tame place than you seem willing to give credit too.

Republicans have informed me that abuse of/frivolous Malpractice suits are the #1 cause of rising healthcare costs. Is that true?

How many Americans have been locked up for "clear and present danger", including under the patriot act which liberalized it?

What % of teachers are removed due to false accusations of sexual conduct? Any student can accuse a teacher at any time, and that teacher would be automatically removed from the classroom until a complete investigation was over.

What % of jilted and wronged lovers make false rape claims?

You know a law that is really hard to abuse... Insurance Fraud. Yet it is rampant.

[The Great Hippo]

Do you 1) Have some understanding of the legislation that allows you to actually discuss the ramifications it has for internet providers and internet users--and why the scenario I proposed couldn't happen, 2) Have at least one link to an expert who does understand the legislation, is outside of the situation, and shares your perspective, or 3) Just enjoy blowing smoke out of your ass?

Please choose one of the above.

[Belial]

Rape accusations. Probable cause. Reasonable Suspicion. Clear and Present Danger. Child Abuse. Disorderly Conduct. Malpractice. Commercial Speech. Cyber Bulling. Libel and Slander.

Of the many you've listed, the ones that stand out as "actually easy to abuse" are probable cause, reasonable suspicion, clear and present danger, cyber bullying, and malpractice. All of which are abused quite frequently.

[The Great Hippo]

Here. I did some homework for you. Here's some actual expert opinion discussing the problems with SOPA.

Now explain to me--precisely why I should listen to you rather than this person? Particularly when you have no apparent grasp over what the legislation even means?

[Radical_Initiator]

Rape accusations. Probable cause. Reasonable Suspicion. Clear and Present Danger. Child Abuse. Disorderly Conduct. Malpractice. Commercial Speech. Cyber Bulling. Libel and Slander.

Of the many you've listed, the ones that stand out as "actually easy to abuse" are probable cause, reasonable suspicion, clear and present danger, cyber bullying, and malpractice. All of which are abused quite frequently.

Yeah, I think I'm getting confused now. The "actually easy to abuse" laws Belial mentioned are easy to abuse exactly because of the same type of behavior that makes SOPA worrisome - they were either drafted as knee-jerk reactions to politicized incidents (terrorism, cyber-bullying) or were poorly drafted due to influence from the very parties that wanted to abuse them; i.e., they were made to be abused (who benefits most from malpractice law abuse?)

[Ixtellor]

Do you 1) Have some understanding of the legislation that allows you to actually discuss the ramifications it has for internet providers and internet users--and why the scenario I proposed couldn't happen, 2) Have at least one link to an expert who does understand the legislation, is outside of the situation, and shares your perspective, or 3) Just enjoy blowing smoke out of your ass?

Please choose one of the above.

So just to be clear; you made something up, got called out on it, and now you don't want to defend it, so your quickly changing the subject.

A good rhetorical device, but doesn't really merit that "critical thinking" skill you claim to possess.


To answer your questions in order:
1) Your scenario could occur. I don't believe it will based on a lifetime of knowledge and research regarding government and law. Furthermore, the opposing side has no victories to stand on. I already listed Doctorows failed predictions. Its conceivable not enough time has passed to vindicate him, I don't see that being the case. I would type more on that subject but I'm opening up Word documents in 3 different formats.

2) I was already to reply then noticed you said "outside the situation". Do you really want me to link the opinion of egg farmers and day laborers thoughts on the topic?

How about this: Here are some experts who agree with me.
http://www.ustr.gov/trade-topics/intellectual-property

I assume you meant that they don't earn a living in a medium that produces copy righted material. At which point I would refer you to the sponsers of the bill. Althought that becomes complicated because I assume they receive political donations from people who are involved. This bascially backs me into a corner where you only goal is to discredit sources based on connections to the topic. The same could be said of 'your side'.

So I will just defer to my opinion and History. (Best prediction of future behavior is past behavior. No copyright law yet passed, has had the ramifications you are claiming.No internet law yet passed has had the ramifications you are claiming)

Of the many you've listed, the ones that stand out as "actually easy to abuse" are probable cause, reasonable suspicion, clear and present danger, cyber bullying, and malpractice. All of which are abused quite frequently.

If you could just direct me to the list of people arrested under "clear and present danger" in a nation of 300+ million people, we can see how accurate your statement is.

Do you have some data on Probably cause abuse? Cyber bulling abuse?

We are discussing abuse of laws, not the legal use of laws to punish crimes.

I will happily await your data to support your claim Belial.

[Ixtellor]

Here. I did some homework for you. Here's some actual expert opinion discussing the problems with SOPA.

Now explain to me--precisely why I should listen to you rather than this person? Particularly when you have no apparent grasp over what the legislation even means?

Great article, thanks for the link.

Lets rebutt two of the major points.

1) Prior Restraint. The SCOTUS has already made acceptions to prior restraint. The author is arguing from the stance that prior restraint is a fundamental right. I personally am a big believer in it, and I hope if SOPA takes affect they use the upmost care to protect that privledge. The laws intention is to take down piracy from those who are hiding behind legal blind spots.
He is taking a libertarian absolutist stance regarding prior restraint. I respect watchdogs, but I dont' always agree with them. I am thankful they are there, and should the law be abused watchdogs like this will help remedy the situation.

Again, he is describing a worst case scenario in which the courts turn a blind eye. I don't believe that will be the case.

2) it could "conceivably... [shut down] face book". Nobody hear actually believes they are going to shut down facebook, twitter, or youtube. Again, it deserves attention, but its not a reason to oppose a law in my opinion.

As to your last statment. Don't believe me if you don't want to.
I am no technological or IP expert. I am an expert in the implementation and history of government policy (and the ecomomy bitches).
If you want to believe the alarmist watch dogs, I am perfectly ok with that. Watch dogs are one of the most important parts of our democracy. \

The fact that the anti-IP alarmists have not been correct about any previous "safe guards of liberty and the internet" apparantly doesn't bother you. Furthermore, a significant protion of them are pro-piracy. I guess that also doesn't bother you, and doesn't give you pause to consider where their 'predictions' (HAHAHAHA) are coming from.

Did you see the South Park episode where every single adult was locked up for false accusations of child abuse... that "COULD" happen too. In the meantime I am a huge fan of a childs ability to shed light on abuse.

[Belial]

If you could just direct me to the list of people arrested under "clear and present danger" in a nation of 300+ million people, we can see how accurate your statement is.

Maybe you should specify that you actually mean a specific law rather than an extremely common phrase that is used in criminal justice legislation all the damn time, and is widely open to abuse. For example, it's the guideline that allows cops (and some citizens) to shoot people when they feel threatened. Whenever a cop shoots someone for being deaf or not dropping fast enough in their own home, it's an abuse of the phrase clear and present danger.

Do you have some data on Probably cause abuse?

Maybe you don't understand how authorities abusing laws works? I'll give you a hint: a law is easy to abuse precisely because it is difficult to get caught or prove.

Are illegal searches conducted all the time however? Certainly. Why? Because barring video evidence no one will believe that a given search was illegal if the person conducting it says it wasn't. If the illegality is somehow proven, then it was not successfully abused.

We are discussing abuse of laws, not the legal use of laws to punish crimes.

Then, again, you clearly don't understand how laws are abused by authorities rather than citizens.

[The Great Hippo]

So just to be clear; you made something up, got called out on it, and now you don't want to defend it, so your quickly changing the subject.

A good rhetorical device, but doesn't really merit that "critical thinking" skill you claim to possess.

I didn't address it because your response was random. More than half the examples you listed are things that are regularly abused, and I knew that if I tried to explain this to you, we'd get into an argument about which ones and to what extent and why they aren't abusive at all and oh my God I'm bored of this conversation already.

Rather, I just decided to give up the point and move on to one that's harder for you to obfuscate.

1) Your scenario could occur. I don't believe it will based on a lifetime of knowledge and research regarding government and law.

Why should I trust your lifetime of knowledge and research regarding government and law over the copyright lawyer's lifetime of knowledge and research? Do you have a degree in copyright law? Do you think you understand the situation better than they do? Can you explain how they're wrong?

2) I was already to reply then noticed you said "outside the situation". Do you really want me to link the opinion of egg farmers and day laborers thoughts on the topic?

'Outside the situation' means 'People who aren't being paid to support SOPA'. Do you actually read posts before replying to them?

How about this: Here are some experts who agree with me.
http://www.ustr.gov/trade-topics/intellectual-property

Yes, the people proposing SOPA agree with you. This is irrelevant. Someone having an idea is not evidence that the idea will work. Critical thinking skills, remember?

So I will just defer to my opinion and History. (Best prediction of future behavior is past behavior. No copyright law yet passed, has had the ramifications you are claiming.No internet law yet passed has had the ramifications you are claiming)

How many revolutionary copyright laws have been passed since the creation of the internet? What sort of ramifications have they had?

Also, I'm not claiming any ramifications. You asked how SOPA could interfere with First Amendment rights; I posted an example of how I assume they could, based on arguments of the anti-SOPA crowd. You agreed this could happen. You then went on to say that we should trust in you and your opinion that it won't happen, because of mumble mumble history mumble Doctorow smells funny mumble.

EDIT: Also, your argument boils down to "The government won't do this, because eventually someone will say 'Come on... I mean, seriously! Come on!'? And what about the notion proposed by that article that SOPA won't, in fact, curtail piracy at all? What about the technical issues proposed concerning internet DNS addresses? What about any of this? Are you in a position to address these points with anything beyond "I am an expert, and I say everything will be fine"?

[Ixtellor]

I dont' have any evidence, but we all know how corrupt police are.

Fixed

1) Voter fraud is rampant too, sorry just don't have any proof of it. I guess you support Voter ID cards now.

2) You underestimate how good lawyers are. You are also apparently oblivious to the lenghts that police departments go to guard against your evidential free accusation.
(You can get a full time job as a lawyer 'witnessing arrests' to make sure it goes by the book. Cops film virtually everything now.)

Why should I trust your lifetime of knowledge and research regarding government and law over the copyright lawyer's lifetime of knowledge and research?

Speaking of not reading posts...

I said "don't believe me if you dont' want too".

We have no way of knowning who will end up being right until it comes to pass. I have made my best attempt to explain why I don't believe the alarmists are right. (mostly because they NEVER are)

That copyright lawyer didn't say "This will happen..." like Doctorow did, he raised concerns that "could" happen. I said "He is right, they could happen".

What fucking more do you want? You didn't quote the many admissions I made in any of the posts. (on purpose?)

Any fucking time you pass a law you have to consider the negative externalities and potential abuses. But you don't dismiss the legislation because of the highly unlikely but worst case scenarios.

Name any piece of legislation Ever and I can tell you what "might" go wrong with it.
Womens suffrage = destroy marriage and the rearing of children.

Good thing we didn't listen to those alarmists huh?

Gay Marriage = destroy the fabric of America and damn us to another "fall of Rome".

Good thing we didn't listen to those alarmists... in er a few states.. huh?

But SOPA ... No this law is going to destory the internet and (actual quote) "end free speech".

Why can't it just fucking be "Lets keep a real close fucking eye on this law and make sure it doesn't get abused". No it has to be "STOP, its going to ruin everything!!"

% of the time Alarmist are correct VERUS % of the time the law works or does nothing.

If you want to believe Doctorow and the other alarmists... go for it. Its just an opinion. You get to believe anything you want to believe about future outcomes.

Lets check back in a few years and see who was right...
(Its going to be me. I called bullshit on this crowd in 2009... and haven't been disproven yet)

[The Great Hippo]

Speaking of not reading posts...

I said "don't believe me if you dont' want too".

Me not wanting to believe you and me asking for reasons to believe you are not mutually exclusive states. CRITICAL THINKING, IXTELLOR.

The rest of your post consists of nonsensical rhetorical ploys. You are also aware that on the occasions that the alarmists were right and we listened to them, we wouldn't have any 'real evidence'--because we had the good sense not to do what they warned us about--right? But that's besides the point: Rather than obsessing over what alarmists are saying and then doing the opposite, why don't we listen to expert opinions, gather evidence, and make a rational assessment?

I don't believe Cory Doctorow; his language is silly and I don't think he's an expert on the subject. Most of the experts I'm reading about agree that SOPA is a bad policy, however, and will both fail to address the problem and create a whole new host of problems in the process. Your defense against this claim consists of "NO IT WON'T!", followed by a rousing cheer of "AND I KNOW HISTORY!", finished with a very loud, very long fart noise.

[Ixtellor]

Moved to PM.

We are debating debate now.

Feel free to post anything I write to you, just trying to clean up a thread of non-sense and bravado.

[The Great Hippo]

I'm not really interested in the PM debate thing. I'm just going to instead re-assert that 'my sources are more credible than yours' isn't a fallacy, so long as you keep in mind what 'my sources are more credible than yours' actually means. It doesn't mean I'm right; it means my sources are more credible, and therefore deserve greater consideration.

[Ixtellor]

I'm not really interested in the PM debate thing. I'm just going to instead re-assert that 'my sources are more credible than yours' isn't a fallacy, so long as you keep in mind what 'my sources are more credible than yours' actually means. It doesn't mean I'm right; it means my sources are more credible, and therefore deserve greater consideration.

OK then..

1) You only read experts that agree with you because of #2.
2) You refuse to listen to experts that disagree with if they make a living from industries that lose money to piracy. So companies like Microsoft which lose billions of dollars to piracy, helps craft laws to prevent that theft. Then they explain WHY, but because they have a financial motive... to not lose billions, they must not have a valid argument.

Thats your handcuff.

Its like dismissing ACLU lawyers arguments regarding liberty (the full time ones) because they earn a living defending liberty.

[Bharrata]

As likely as piracy destroying the music industry, imho.

Isn't that one of the reasons why this law is proposed in the first place? Maybe I'm reading your sarcasm wrong, but this bill was partly developed by the "music industry", with the addendum that I don't hear Skrillex or Merge Records or Ian Mackaye or Steve Albini or anyone but Metallica and the major majors complaining about music 'piracy' destroying their business.

So again, why is this bill even being considered if it's really just more of the same too-big-to-fail type legislation? Let the major labels and Hollywood fall apart due to the whims of capitalist enterprise, let the control go back to the artists and managers who give a flying fuck about art and changing people's lives.

Any, and every law, can and will be abused. Its the frequency that matters. I predict an insignificant amount of abuse. Others predict rampant abuse.

I totally agree that the laws abuse should be policed closely and any problems resolved with great diligence.

So for all of those how believe piracy is wrong(would love to know what % of xkcd'ers do) we are debating X or the frequency of abuse.

Piracy should be viewed as a negative incentive on the industries in question to adapt their business models, instead of getting legislation to make their markets more favorable.

If every law can and will be abused, explain to me why the USA needs this one?

[Ixtellor]

Piracy should be viewed as a negative incentive on the industries in question to adapt their business models, instead of getting legislation to make their markets more favorable.

Its not about protecting their markets, its about enforcing the copyright and intellectual property rights laws.

Criminals came up with a new way of commiting crimes, the law is adapting.

If every law can and will be abused, explain to me why the USA needs this one

Its an attempt to enforce copyright laws.

If criminals found a way to easily commit crimes against YOU, you would want government to respond.

[The Great Hippo]

1) You only read experts that agree with you because of #2.

I've actually asked you for experts who agree with you. My only stipulation was that these shouldn't be experts who are directly working for proponents of SOPA.

2) You refuse to listen to experts that disagree with if they make a living from industries that lose money to piracy. So companies like Microsoft which lose billions of dollars to piracy, helps craft laws to prevent that theft. Then they explain WHY, but because they have a financial motive... to not lose billions, they must not have a valid argument.

Did you actually read the article I posted? There are a number of experts mentioned in it who work for clients who are losing money because of piracy, and agree that this is a poor response to piracy. Let me restate that, because it's very important: A number of people who stand to lose actual money as a result of piracy think this anti-piracy legislation is stupid. When the opponents of your legislation include a number of the very people your legislation is aimed to protect, there might be a problem with your legislation--don't you think?

Can you find me any experts, any articles, any pro-SOPA advocates who are addressing all, a majority, or even a significant number of the concerns raised by this article? Hell, you know what--at this point? Fuck it; I'll even read the ones written by people who are being paid to support SOPA!

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

Piracy should be viewed as a negative incentive on the industries in question to adapt their business models, instead of getting legislation to make their markets more favorable.

Is adapting business models a means, or an end? If it is a means, then to what ends?

I mean, this strikes me as rather paternalistic: pirates are doing music publishers a favor by making them adapt their business models! Yeah, right. They're making music publishers adapt their business models to fix a problem that wouldn't exist if not for the pirates. This is "help" like the threat of housebreakers helps me to lock my door.

[Bharrata]

Its not about protecting their markets, its about enforcing the copyright and intellectual property rights laws.

Again, if it's not hurting, but actually helping some in the industry, how is this not an attempt to protect the major label's profits?

I pointed to Skrillex and Merge Records for a specific reason...if some market players are flourishing despite piracy, why do the laws need to change?

Criminals came up with a new way of commiting crimes, the law is adapting.

By allowing the government even more power (assuming PIPA is passed as well) to watch its citizens activities online.

I put this speech in my first post in this thread: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12Mz3r0I6PY

If software developed by US companies is being sold to regimes such as Syria, where it is used to crack down on dissent, why is it I shouldn't be worried about SOPA and PIPA being passed in conjunction with NDAA? I completely understand that you don't think it will be that bad, but it doesn't logically follow that just because something isn't that bad means it is necessary.

If criminals found a way to easily commit crimes against YOU, you would want government to respond.

Well, now I am sufficiently worried, what's the Ben Franklin quote people love to use? Still got the 2nd amendment anyways.

Is adapting business models a means, or an end? If it is a means, then to what ends?

To return control and profit to the artist themselves, labels can still serve a purpose for those who want great marketing, but I at least would like to see a more egalitarian entertainment industry.

Here's a pretty good article by David Byrne in Wired about the changing music industry:

http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/magazine/16-01/ff_byrne?currentPage=all

edit:

I mean, this strikes me as rather paternalistic: pirates are doing music publishers a favor by making them adapt their business models! Yeah, right. They're making music publishers adapt their business models to fix a problem that wouldn't exist if not for the pirates. This is "help" like the threat of housebreakers helps me to lock my door.

I can see where you're coming from and maybe I'm completely wrong, but I don't think it's overreaching to say p2p software is what helped create the independent music boom of the last 10-15 years. No name acts, who were quite good and either had no shot of being signed by a major or no interest in doing so, were suddenly able to make good money and play in bigger venues because of the word-of-mouth aspect of the internet.

double edit: and it's not the pirates forcing music publishers to adapt, it's music publishers having to adapt to new technology, which changes the market. The problem exists because of the technology, pirates will be able to work around it anyways.

[KnightExemplar]

1) You only read experts that agree with you because of #2.

I've actually asked you for experts who agree with you. My only stipulation was that these shouldn't be experts who are directly working for proponents of SOPA.

2) You refuse to listen to experts that disagree with if they make a living from industries that lose money to piracy. So companies like Microsoft which lose billions of dollars to piracy, helps craft laws to prevent that theft. Then they explain WHY, but because they have a financial motive... to not lose billions, they must not have a valid argument.

Did you actually read the article I posted? There are a number of experts mentioned in it who work for clients who are losing money because of piracy, and agree that this is a poor response to piracy. Let me restate that, because it's very important: A number of people who stand to lose actual money as a result of piracy think this anti-piracy legislation is stupid. When the opponents of your legislation include a number of the very people your legislation is aimed to protect, there might be a problem with your legislation--don't you think?

Can you find me any experts, any articles, any pro-SOPA advocates who are addressing all, a majority, or even a significant number of the concerns raised by this article? Hell, you know what--at this point? Fuck it; I'll even read the ones written by people who are being paid to support SOPA!

I've stated this in the other thread (the one on SOPA...). But I guess Ixtellor missed it there.

This is the easiest point to counter. As of November 22, 2011, the BSA has stopped supporting SOPA. (BSA is a group including Apple, Microsoft, Mathworks, Autogroup). They're decidedly silent on the issue. Indeed, Microsoft, Apple, Mathworks (creators of Matlab), Autogroup (creator of 3d Studio Max and Autocad), Adobe are all very strongly pro-copyright. Bringing Microsoft into the argument HURTS Ixtellor's argument significantly.

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/bsa-pi ... 14094.html

In a blog post, BSA president and CEO Robert Holleyman wrote that SOPA "needs work" as the current proposal does not "balance key innovation, privacy and security considerations with the need to thwart the threat rogue websites pose." At this time BSA does not support SOPA, he wrote.

According to Holleyman, SOPA "could sweep in more than just truly egregious actors." He noted that the bill needs "definitions of who can be the subject of legal actions" as well as "narrow" and "tighter" descriptions of possible remedies. ... Due process, free speech, and privacy are rights that cannot be compromised. And the security of networks and communications is indispensable to a thriving Internet economy." He also objected any activities such as "filtering or monitoring the Internet".

On Microsoft specifically: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57330 ... ight-bill/

Microsoft's silence on SOPA speaks volumes actually. Microsoft Windows is one of the most pirated pieces of software in the world, and Microsoft's history makes them one of the strongest pro-copyright supporters. By taking a neutral stance on SOPA, it really highlights how bad SOPA is. Even Microsoft doesn't want to officially support it, despite being part of the group who helped draft the legislation.

Even then, the neutral stance of the BSA was not enough for Kaspersky labs (author of Kaspersky Antivirus, which is also very threatened by Piracy). Kaspersky Labs quit the BSA to make a stronger anti-SOPA stance. So yes, even the pro-copyright groups are hating SOPA. If Ixtellor's strongest argument is that the anti-copyright group is stupid... then perhaps he'll be convinced by some of the strongest pro-copyright groups who are decidedly against SOPA.

Now that we've established some pro-copyright groups that are against SOPA, can we at least discuss the implications of the Bill itself now?

[Ixtellor]

Ok, lets discuss stuff not in the bill and just discuss people and organizations.

As of November 22, 2011, the BSA has stopped supporting SOPA

You didn't link the actual document, you linked a summary of the document.
http://blog.bsa.org/2011/11/21/sopa-nee ... derations/

Some observers have raised reasonable questions about whether certain SOPA provisions might have unintended consequences in these areas. BSA has long stood against filtering or monitoring the Internet. All of these concerns should be duly considered and addressed

At best you can call that neutral.

BTW, the BSA has donated 100% of its megar funds to people who support SOPA.

Then Knightexemplar decides to give a link... complaing about how much the BSA DOES support SOPA. Kaspersky labs quit the BSA why? Because of a perception they still support SOPA.

So to summarize you: BSA doesn't support SOPA, so Kaspersky labs quit the organization over their support of SOPA.
(I am not an expert on Kaspersky Labs, but I noticed its a Russian firm *eyebrows raised*)

Microsoft's silence on SOPA speaks volumes actually

They are publicly "Neutral" but privately they are "Loud and Clear".
Follow the money... guess where it all leads? Pro-SOPA.

The author of of SOPA, Lamar Smith, has as his 17th largest donor... Microsoft. And thats only checking their biggest PAC. In addition to their other pacs, MS is a member of MANY organizations, and every time I look... BAM money to Pro-SOPA people.

If I were to continue digging I am confident I will find more and more money going to SOPA supporters.

To say they are "Silent" on SOPA is beyond naive.

Here is a fun game. Go to tracksopa and then compare it all of MS's political donations... just from their biggest PAC.

Again, I am no expert on the technical aspects of the Law. But I am an expert on how laws get written and implemented.

Back to the BSA, if you look at their complaints concerns, all valid, I wager its the result of the complex composition of the bill behind closed doors with many interest groups and various actors throwing in their input/ideas into the legislation.

I think its obvious that those people are taking a great deal of time and diligence in trying to have a final draft proposal.

Can you find me any experts, any articles, any pro-SOPA advocates who are addressing all, a majority, or even a significant number of the concerns raised by this article? Hell, you know what--at this point? Fuck it; I'll even read the ones written by people who are being paid to support SOPA!

The word limit will prevent me from linking everyone who supports SOPA.
Here is just one list of hundreds of organziations and individual businesses that wrote a Letter to Congress, urgin them to no only support SOPA, but also
the PROTECT IP Act, and the Combating Online Infringment and Counterfeits Act.

http://www.theglobalipcenter.com/sites/ ... er-359.pdf

If you are seeking an "argument" from an "expert".

How about the greatest 1st amendment scholar in the nation?
You know... the guy who successfully argued Citizens United and convinced the SCOTUS to overturn 100 years of precedents because he so transformed their beliefs on Free Speech?
(Horrible decision btw... the worst decision in decades.... he is just that good)

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Floyd Abrams,
http://www.fightonlinetheft.com/sites/d ... Abrams.pdf


Nothing is being done about piracy. This is an attempt to change directions. Does it have the potential for abuse like EVERY Law... yes. Is there reason to believe that this will be the ONE law that suddenly gets abused resulting in a denial of freedom and liberty? I think not.

The anti-SOPA people have made their arguments. The pro-SOPA people said "your right, those are valid concerns, so lets make sure they don't occur".
People who ARE being harmed by piracy, are ALL for it.
People who MAY be harmed if the law is completely abused, are against it.

Real world harm versus Potential abuse... of which everyone is aware and agreed to keep a close eye on.

[The Great Hippo]

Wow.

Ironically, before I read the article you provided, Ixtellor, I was actually on the fence about SOPA (I hardly knew anything about it). Now that I've read it, I'm completetly against it. Unless I'm misunderstanding, this is a ridiculously anti-business bill. I mean, did you read it?

From what I'm understanding here, all I need to do is demonstrate to a judge that you're 1) Actively causing me financial harm via piracy, and 2) prove that this harm will happen before we can get you in a courtroom to defend yourself. I'll probably need a lawyer to pull this off, but if I have one, I can now...

1) Block your site on all US ISP providers.

2) Have your site removed from all US-located search engines.

3) Force all payment network providers to cut off any transactions between you and US customers.

4) Force all U.S. internet advitisers to stop doing business with you.

I mean, holy shit. Am I misunderstanding something, here? All I need to do is get a lawyer and prove that you're hosting files that are costing me money--and you are fucked. You don't even have to host them on purpose, do you?--I just have to demonstrate that there is a real and present danger to my pocket book, and waiting for you to defend yourself would cost too much. And now? As far as the US is concerned--your site is gone, your customers are gone, your payment methods are gone, your advertisers are gone. How the fuck is anyone arguing that this is a good idea while keeping a straight face?

What strikes me as even more ironic is that from what I understand of torrents and sites like Pirate Bay... this legislation probably won't even slow them down. Fuck, it's not just anti-business; it's almost pro-piracy.

People who ARE being harmed by piracy, are ALL for it.

I posted an article a while back which referred to a significant number of people who are both being harmed by piracy and opposing SOPA. Are you asserting that the article is in error, or did you just not read it?

[Ixtellor]

Unless I'm misunderstanding, this is a ridiculously anti-business bill.

I guess thats why the Better Business Bureau, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are for it. (in addition to virtually every industry wide business group, including retailers)

So either your right and those Business organizations are wrong... or

Unless I'm misunderstanding

<---- Yea its that one.

Are you saying didn't understand the "tools" that were in the bill before?
I mentioned them 5 pages ago, in addition to... you know them being the the bill.

Your fears are based on the presumption that people are going to go go nutz and shut down facebook or the huffingtonpost.

Again, believe whatever you want. If you want to believe its an anti-business bill and that the entire business community is too dumb to see your ... er reasoning... then go for it.

(Did you know that if you sell drugs they can take - your house, your car, your savings, furniture, and pretty much anything you ever bought with drug money?)

Once you break the law, the law can come down HARD. Today.. .you can pirate with impunity.. SOPA will change that. Pirates should be worried... Facebook and Google, not so much.

Ixtellor

P.S. If you think shutting down your ISP is harsh, you probably don't want to google "life in prison", it will freak you out!

[Robert'); DROP TABLE *;]

(Did you know that if you sell drugs they can take - your house, your car, your savings, furniture, and pretty much anything you ever bought with drug money?)

Fortunately, it is quite impossible to sell drugs without knowing about it. "Supporting" piracy unknowingly is a lot easier, i.e. completely trivial, requiring large amounts of effort to stop.

Once you break the law, the law can come down HARD. Today.. .you can pirate with impunity.. SOPA will change that. Pirates should be worried... Facebook and Google, not so much.

I wasn't aware the courts could act fast enough to impede pirates significantly.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

From what I'm understanding here, all I need to do is demonstrate to a judge that you're 1) Actively causing me financial harm via piracy, and 2) prove that this harm will happen before we can get you in a courtroom to defend yourself.

Which article are you looking at, just so I'm on the same page? From the language of the bill itself, it looks like you would have to show that the site is an "Internet site is dedicated to theft of U.S. property," which means that it either has to be solely or almost solely designed for copyright infringement or that it has to be marketed by its operator as useful for copyright infringement. This is substantially narrower than "causing financial harm."

Also, wouldn't this better fit the actual SOPA thread?

[Ixtellor]

Fortunately, it is quite impossible to sell drugs without knowing about it.

True story: You go to mexico to shop. You come back across the border and they find drugs in your car frame. Or they dont' find the drugs, and a person, unnown to you, removes the drugs from your car. You may already be an important cog in the drug trade and not even know it.

"Supporting" piracy unknowingly is a lot easier

This is the crux of the debate. Will the law be abused to go after innocents or hamper honest websites, or will it be used to just target Pirates.

[Heisenberg]

This is the crux of the debate. Will the law be abused to go after innocents or hamper honest websites, or will it be used to just target Pirates.

That'd be a pretty stupid debate, seeing as hundreds of experts could agree that it would be abused, and a single asshole could jump up and down and yell "NUH UH."

A non-stupid debate would be "How easy does this law make it to shut down honest websites?" To which a non-stupid person would say "Gee, it looks like it makes it incredibly easy to shut down honest websites. Why would we enact such a law when it has zero apparent benefit?"

A stupid way to call Floyd Abrams out on his endorsement of the MPAA's position would be to pick out a half-dozen times he was wrong in his life and pretend that was a justification to ignore everything he says ever. A non-stupid way for me to call out Floyd Abrams is to point out that the MPAA pays him lots of money to write letters to Congress about how awesome anti-piracy legislation is, which represents a teeny tiny conflict of interest.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

A stupid way to call Floyd Abrams out on his endorsement of the MPAA's position would be to pick out a half-dozen times he was wrong in his life and pretend that was a justification to ignore everything he says ever. A non-stupid way for me to call out Floyd Abrams is to point out that the MPAA pays him lots of money to write letters to Congress about how awesome anti-piracy legislation is, which represents a teeny tiny conflict of interest.

Scumbag debater: acknowledges that ad hominem argument is "stupid." Proposes a better ad hominem in its place.

If you're looking for a way to "call out Floyd Abrams," you're already off the mark. Why not discuss the content of his letter instead?

[Heisenberg]

Scumbag debater: acknowledges that ad hominem argument is "stupid." Proposes a better ad hominem in its place.

How would you characterize attacking someone's credibility, in this case Cory Doctorow's, because they were wrong once? I don't consider that an ad-hominem, I consider that a really dumb way to determine credibility.

And how is pointing out a conflict of interest ad-hom? I don't have anything against Ix's buddy Floyd, I just don't consider him to be an expert and can't trust him because he's admittedly being paid to argue that this shitty bill smells like roses. Conflict of interest is a legitimate reason to doubt credibility. Googling someone and finding the 5 times they were wrong is not.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

Conflict of interest is a legitimate reason to doubt credibility.

Sure. But he's not asking you to believe him based on his credibility. He's asking you to believe him based on the arguments presented in his letter.

Every lawyer ever has a conflict of interest in making the arguments that she does. Courts are able to make use of their arguments because they're able to read and evaluate those arguments based on content, without having to resort to credibility as a yardstick.

[Heisenberg]

How about the greatest 1st amendment scholar in the nation?

This is not an appeal to his arguments. If Ixtellor wanted to present the guy's arguments, he would have done so, instead of spending a paragraph extolling his virtues. He said "Look at this awesome lawyer who agrees with me" while omitting that he was paid to agree with him. If you want to get into his arguments, or really his complete failure to address the first amendment, preferring instead to talk a lot about how due process is preserved because you have a chance to unfuck yourself if you can prove to a court that you didn't break the law (because guilty until proven innocent is the 5th amendment), that's fine, but Ixtellor was, in my mind, appealing to an expert who not only failed to be an expert but is also a paid shill.

[phillipsjk]

If you are seeking an "argument" from an "expert".

How about the greatest 1st amendment scholar in the nation?
You know... the guy who successfully argued Citizens United and convinced the SCOTUS to overturn 100 years of precedents because he so transformed their beliefs on Free Speech?
(Horrible decision btw... the worst decision in decades.... he is just that good)

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Floyd Abrams,
http://www.fightonlinetheft.com/sites/d ... Abrams.pdf

The problem with that analysis is that it examines the issue soley from a US legal perspective, while at the same time, is primarily designed to target foreign websites outside US jurisdiction. For example, on page 12, he asserts that merely linking to infringing content incurs liability:

Finally, it is worth noting that legislation in this area typically implicates linking, a key part of the Internet's architecture, in two ways. Sites may facilitate infringement by linking alone, without directly hosting infinging content, and the Stop Online Piracy Act's remedies include potential injuctions against linking by search engines, pursuant to a court order. These measures' impact on linking are not overboard, nor break from precedent.

However, the Supreme Court of Canada (Crookes v. Newton 2011 SCC 47) has held that mere linking is not a crime.

Hyperlinks are, in essence, references, which are fundamentally different from other acts of “publication”. Hyperlinks and references both communicate that something exists, but do not, by themselves, communicate its content. They both require some act on the part of a third party before he or she gains access to the content. The fact that access to that content is far easier with hyperlinks than with footnotes does not change the reality that a hyperlink, by itself, is content neutral. Furthermore, inserting a hyperlink into a text gives the author no control over the content in the secondary article to which he or she has linked.

Of course, I take that one step furhter any apply it to .torrent search engines like The Pirate Bay as well. They shut down their .torrent tracker and now use "Magnet links" specifically to avoid facilitating copyright infringement as described.

[The Great Hippo]

TheGrammarBolshevik: This article, linked by Ixtellor, where the person in question summarizes the targets as those sites which are 'committing or facilitating the commission of criminal violations under current law' (page 5, first paragraph). I'm not familiar with whether or not SOPA defines this any more narrowly.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

Look no further than the next part of that sentence, which further stipulates that said sites would also have to be (on account of those violations) "subject to seizure in the United States in an action brought by the Attorney General if such site were a domestic Internet site." In other words, that section of the bill would only allow targeting sites that are at least as "bad" as sites that are subject to takedown under other law. The expansion is only in terms of jurisdiction.

Also worth noting that you can only do the four things that you label as a) through d) if you're a federal prosecutor (covered in section 102 of the bill). If you're going the private plaintiff route, with the notifications and all, DNS, service providers, and search engines can still provide access to the site; only payment networks and advertisers are affected (see section 103, as well as the third paragraph on page 7 of Abrams' letter).

Not to say that I support the thing, but let's be clear on what it actually does.

[The Great Hippo]

Look no further than the next part of that sentence, which further stipulates that said sites would also have to be (on account of those violations) "subject to seizure in the United States in an action brought by the Attorney General if such site were a domestic Internet site." In other words, that section of the bill would only allow targeting sites that are at least as "bad" as sites that are subject to takedown under other law. The expansion is only in terms of jurisdiction.

Also worth noting that you can only do the four things that you label as a) through d) if you're a federal prosecutor (covered in section 102 of the bill). If you're going the private plaintiff route, with the notifications and all, DNS, service providers, and search engines can still provide access to the site; only payment networks and advertisers are affected (see section 103, as well as the third paragraph on page 7 of Abrams' letter).

Not to say that I support the thing, but let's be clear on what it actually does.

I beg pardon for my various misinterpretations; that's the downside of being absolute shit at legalese reading (I would never have extrapolated what you did from the 'subject to seizure' paragraph, although now that you're explaining it, it makes sense). But what sites are already subject to takedown under the law? Only sites that are dedicated in some function or form to these violations?

I also completely missed the distinction between federal prosecutors and plaintiffs (again, shit at understanding legalese); that makes a lot more sense, but still leaves me in a strong position against the bill because federal prosecutors are quite capable of being fucks (and plaintiffs can still be fucks too, just to a lesser degree).

EDIT: Something that strikes me as an interesting wrinkle is the intersection between 'free speech' and 'aiding and abetting piracy' here; on the internet, the two acts are so closely related that it's hard not to hit one without hitting the other. Is a forum dedicated to discussing piracy in a positive light (but refusing to host pirated files) representative of a website that could be taken down? What if the forum is a nest for people linking and sending torrents to each other?

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

But what sites are already subject to takedown under the law? Only sites that are dedicated in some function or form to these violations?

It looks like there isn't a lot of precedent on it. Abrams' letter refers to United States v. TVShack.net et al., but that case was won by default, so it doesn't really say much about whether the government's argument was legally sound. Their argument, for what it's worth, is that the sites in question were "property used or intended to be used to willfully infringe a copyright," which puts said property up for forfeiture under 18 USC 2323. To speculate, I'd say it's unlikely that this would be construed to include sites that just have a random infringing video somewhere; otherwise, sites like YouTube would already be illegal. But it does seem to reveal a deficiency in the law, which probably was drafted back when property "used" in infringing copyrights would usually have been owned by the infringers themselves or people in collusion with them. To construe this as covering any web server with user-generated content seems absurdly broad, and I would think also unconstitutionally so.

There's apparently an ongoing appeal in that specific case that should give clearer precedent on how the law applies to websites. Abrams argues that a strength of SOPA is that its scope will automatically narrow in accordance with decisions regarding domestically-operated sites (page 11, second full paragraph).

I also completely missed the distinction between federal prosecutors and plaintiffs (again, shit at understanding legalese); that makes a lot more sense, but still leaves me in a strong position against the bill because federal prosecutors are quite capable of being fucks (and plaintiffs can still be fucks too, just to a lesser degree).

No doubt, but they still have to get their fuckery past a federal judge. While such judges are also capable of fuckery, this wouldn't be an innovation of SOPA.

EDIT: Something that strikes me as an interesting wrinkle is the intersection between 'free speech' and 'aiding and abetting piracy' here; on the internet, the two acts are so closely related that it's hard not to hit one without hitting the other. Is a forum dedicated to discussing piracy in a positive light (but refusing to host pirated files) representative of a website that could be taken down? What if the forum is a nest for people linking and sending torrents to each other?

Based on my understanding, the former would be fine while the latter would be not. But there's a case to be made that taking down the latter site would be an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech. These gentlemen make that case better than I probably can. Meanwhile, I don't think there has been any Supreme Court ruling on this particular question, even though the ability to get an injunction preventing copyright infringement presumably predates the Internet by quite a while.

Oh, and I might as well cover my tracks for those keeping score at home: I'm not anything close to a lawyer and you're not anything close to my client. Everything I've said here is an uneducated opinion offered for informational purposes, and if you make the terrible decision to act based on anything I've said, you do so at your own risk. Caveat lector.

[Heisenberg]

Also worth noting that you can only do the four things that you label as a) through d) if you're a federal prosecutor (covered in section 102 of the bill). If you're going the private plaintiff route, with the notifications and all, DNS, service providers, and search engines can still provide access to the site; only payment networks and advertisers are affected (see section 103, as well as the third paragraph on page 7 of Abrams' letter).

So federal prosecutors can shut down your storefront for suspected copywright infringement, while your competitors can only confiscate your cash register? Still seems pretty ripe for abuse by private plaintiffs.

[Zamfir]

I'd like all talk about SOPA to go to the SOPA thread