SOPA talk, yo.

[Belial]

But they did host it in the US

Uhh...no? Their servers were overseas.

[Panonadin]

But they did host it in the US

Uhh...no? Their servers were overseas.

Only because I absolutely SUCK at nested quotes and comments. I will just point you to the page before this one where the Washington post article is linked and the other link is spoilered. The ISP is in VA? The datacenters were in Washington, Canada, and I think some place overseas.

I'm not just making stuff up.

Panodin,

It is illegal, in China, to post critiques of the communist party.

If someone in America posts those critiques, on the internet, where a chinese person could read them, should we extradite them to China for prosecution? Should China be allowed to stop the entire world from using their site? What if it ended up on a Chinese server? Say, a person was using the social networking site based in china, and said they disliked the Communist party to the chinese friends they hang out with there. Should we extradite them?

Thank you for taking the time to explain this in a different way. Hrm.

No. I guess not. Would you be ok with China taking down the Database hosting your writings if they are located in China? If the domain was also registered with a Chinese company would you be ok with them seizing that? Leaving you free to post your writings all over the NET except in China.

That's where I think we are splitting off. I am not/was not aware of any evidence that they took any steps to remove infrining content.

They complied with DMCA take down requests- the other thread on this has brought to light that their implementation for such was flawed, but if so, they should have been instructed that their compliance was insufficient and told to fix it. Not unilaterally taken off the net.

I apologize for that oversight on my part I was not aware they were cooperating.

But they did host it in the US and the content (again assuming but at least some of it) did belong to the "US" or companies based in the US.

I think here there's another conversational split- taking down the servers (after due process!) located within the US that broke US laws is acceptable. Extraditing a foreign national to the US for breaking US laws when that person was not in the US or a US citizen, is not.

This is why I like conversation because I stand to change my own opinion and learn a little in the process. I ask this, if you do agree after due process that taking the servers and content based in the US offline is a reasonable response, is that where the response stops?

If I take content that belongs to you and live in Germany and host it on German servers for anyone to download would you say I was LEGALLY in the right?

[Belial]

The datacenters were in Washington, Canada, and I think some place overseas.

In that case the US has the right to seize the US center only, as only content on those servers can be construed to violate US law

[Game_boy]

Regardless of legality or intent, it was a terrible business decision to have US servers. The US was the only country who were likely to go after them legally.

[Ghostbear]

I apologize for that oversight on my part I was not aware they were cooperating.

Easy to miss in the whole hubbub of the topic, no worries.

This is why I like conversation because I stand to change my own opinion and learn a little in the process. I ask this, if you do agree after due process that taking the servers and content based in the US offline is a reasonable response, is that where the response stops?

I would say so, yes. If you place something in another country, you place it under their legal jurisdiction. Once that nation has done what they can to do objects (in this case servers and such) that break their laws, then they've done everything they should be empowered to do. Going beyond that is enforcing your laws on peoples that have had no say in those laws, who are not part of the social contract with your nation, and in all probability, have never even heard of your laws. Do you know what the Austrian laws regarding copyright are? Denmark? Zimbabwe? Japan? I only have the vaguest understanding of Canadian law, and the border with them is only about 4 hours (driving) away from where I live.

If I take content that belongs to you and live in Germany and host it on German servers for anyone to download would you say I was LEGALLY in the right?

Yes, I would. If you visit the US, then you would probably have cause to worry. So long as you are not breaking the laws of where you live, or where you visit, or where you are a citizen of, then you should have absolutely zero worry about foreign laws. Should a German citizen be beholden to US copyright laws? If they're beholden to our copyright laws, should they be responsible for all US laws as well?

[Panonadin]

The datacenters were in Washington, Canada, and I think some place overseas.

In that case the US has the right to seize the US center only, as only content on those servers can be construed to violate US law

^^
This is where I think I'm going to end up on the discussion.

However I cant make up my mind on whether or not the people in question should be in any legal trouble? Are they free to host US content all over the world as long as it isn't in the US and when they do slip up and host something here the owners of the material only recourse is to shut down the servers based in the US?

[Ghostbear]

However I cant make up my mind on whether or not the people in question should be in any legal trouble? Are they free to host US content all over the world as long as it isn't in the US and when they do slip up and host something here the owners of the material only recourse is to shut down the servers based in the US?

I can't remember who it was, but someone earlier in thread mentioned (and you did reply to it, but I feel it's worth bringing back up) the example of something entering the public domain in Canada, but still being copyright protected in the US. In that case, the material is still "owned", going by your current question, it would lead to the US owners being able to impose their ownership in Canada. That seems quite preposterous to me, which makes me ask: why does ownership of the material matter in this case? Ownership of IP is a weird and fuzzy realm- if you write a book, ownership of it is going to be split, in various ways, between yourself and each of your publishers (in many cases, one for each country you publish in). "Ownership" doesn't, and shouldn't, allow people to apply their local laws across the globe.

[mousewiz]

However I cant make up my mind on whether or not the people in question should be in any legal trouble? Are they free to host US content all over the world as long as it isn't in the US and when they do slip up and host something here the owners of the material only recourse is to shut down the servers based in the US?

Someone else in this thread mentioned the Berne Convention. It is my understanding that participating countries should treat the copyrights of others in the same way they treat their own copyrights. So they are free to host US content all over the world as long as they are obeying the copyright laws of the hosting country while they do it.

If they host any copyrighted content in the US, and do not obey US copyright law while doing so, then they are breaking the law in the US. At this point I see nothing wrong with the US trying to have them extradited to have a US trial.

[Griffin]

Ownership of IP is a government granted and government enforced monopoly. Outside of the countries that enforce that monopoly, you do not actually own it. So yes, its the right of those countries to have whatever laws they want in regards to that.

[dhokarena56]

Sigh.

I have only the following thought to comfort myself: the lobbyists in support of SOPA are wearing machine-manufactured clothing.

We may not see the light at the end of the tunnel for years. But buckle up, gentleman, for we shall see it, and they shall applaud us and curse their memories.

[Steax]

So how effective was that blackout? ProRepublica tracked it happening. Via TechCrunch:



That's outdated because the count is now 26 support and 100 opposing, with another 38 leaning towards no.... Or the other page shows 63 support and 122 opponents. I don't know how they differ.

PIPA support is still dangerous, however, with 37 supporting, 22 opposing, and 6 leaning towards no.

Still, the before-and-after is striking.

[dragonmustang]

Guess the internet getting angry in an election year is pretty effective...

And Anonymous just went nuts on DoJ, MPAA, RIAA, and a bunch of others: http://gizmodo.com/5877679/anonymous-kills-department-of-justice-site-in-megaupload-revenge-strike

[Griffin]

Apparently the media moguls are infuriated that Obama is not doing or saying what they paid him to do. The staggering sense of entitlement in these quotes is just mind boggling.

http://www.deadline.com/2012/01/exclusi ... acy-stand/

“Jim explained that this notion that the Hollywood community will continue giving regardless of its business interests has to be taken into consideration. The message was, ‘Don’t expect Hollywood to show up and say ‘Who do I write the check to’ anymore.”

The moguls are reminding Obama et al that, in the words of one studio chief, “God knows how much money we’ve given to Obama and the Democrats and yet they’re not supporting our interests"

[Ghostbear]

I read a similar article the other day- it actually makes me wonder if, deep down, part of this was devised by republicans to try to drive a wedge between Obama and two of his best donor bases- Hollywood and the tech industry. It's probably far too much of a conspiracy thing, but that is the outcome- and it is worth mentioning that SOPA (the worse of the two laws) was championed primarily by a republican.

As I said, probably a bit too much conspiracy, just an observation of how it worked out.

[dragonmustang]

Apparently the media moguls are infuriated that Obama is not doing or saying what they paid him to do. The staggering sense of entitlement in these quotes is just mind boggling.

http://www.deadline.com/2012/01/exclusi ... acy-stand/

“Jim explained that this notion that the Hollywood community will continue giving regardless of its business interests has to be taken into consideration. The message was, ‘Don’t expect Hollywood to show up and say ‘Who do I write the check to’ anymore.”

The moguls are reminding Obama et al that, in the words of one studio chief, “God knows how much money we’ve given to Obama and the Democrats and yet they’re not supporting our interests"

Excuse me while I puke.... They just don't get it, do they?

[Griffin]

Oh, they get. They paid good money for this legislation, and now it's not going to go through. They've been robbed, and by god do they fucking hate crooks. And now Obama is just another crook - taking their money and not giving them what they feel the deserve in return.

[Metaphysician]

Oh, they get. They paid good money for this legislation, and now it's not going to go through. They've been robbed, and by god do they fucking hate crooks. And now Obama is just another crook - taking their money and not giving them what they feel the deserve in return.

This is hilarious. Are they actually openly bitching that Obama may not be delivering on the bribes?

Holy shit the actual article is so over the top. This is the first time I've ever seen a meltdown where the elite are throwing fits over the president taking into account the will of the people as well as their own standpoint. It's pretty clear from the quotes that they expect rubber stamps for their legislation in return for their campaign contributions. This is amazing. I'm laughing uncontrollably right now.

[Magnanimous]

Oh, they get. They paid good money for this legislation, and now it's not going to go through. They've been robbed, and by god do they fucking hate crooks. And now Obama is just another crook - taking their money and not giving them what they feel the deserve in return.

This is hilarious. Are they actually openly bitching that Obama may not be delivering on the bribes?

Holy shit the actual article is so over the top. This is the first time I've ever seen a meltdown where the elite are throwing fits over the president taking into account the will of the people as well as their own standpoint. It's pretty clear from the quotes that they expect rubber stamps for their legislation in return for their campaign contributions. This is amazing. I'm laughing uncontrollably right now.

I almost started laughing too. Hopefully this teaches people that bribes aren't always worth it...

[Randomizer]

The quotes are unattributed, they just say "Hollywood moguls", except for one quote they say they got off of a twitter feed from Rupert Murdoch. Who did these people actually talk to? Who do they define as a "Hollywood mogul"? Did they pull the quotes out of thin air?

[KnightExemplar]

In this segment, she very clearly speaks favorably about SOPA. Contrast her with Dodd or other clearly anti-SOPA players (The video right after my first link).

I can't watch videos at work, but the way you've worded that seems to suggest that you're calling Dodd an anti-SOPA player. How in tarnation does that work?

I think by pro-SOPA, KnightExempler means pro the SOPA protests. (I.E, anti-SOPA.) So I think he's saying the opposite of what he means.

Yes, thank you. I've been saying the opposite of what I meant to say...

I'll go shut up now. I guess I'm just tired

[Sockmonkey]

Maddox makes a good point on this. http://maddox.xmission.com/

[KnightExemplar]

Maddox makes a good point on this. http://maddox.xmission.com/

As usual, Maddox is too pessimistic for my tastes. Almost everyone agrees that Piracy is a problem, and I'm sure we are all willing to work together to craft a solution. The OPEN act apparently is a better starting point, keeping the general provisions / punishments of SOPA, but adds a number of improvements to help prevent abuse.

http://idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com/20 ... d-pipa.php

The OPEN Act differs in that it would make the International Trade Commission (ITC) the agency responsible for fighting online piracy. The ITC already handles all cases involving foreign imports that are accused of copyright infringement, so it would seem a more natural fit for dealing with foreign websites, according to Issa and Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR), the bill’s other main co-sponsor.

Under OPEN, once the ITC receives a complaint that a foreign website contained pirated material, it would be obligated to notify the website of the complaint — a key provision missing from SOPA, where no notification is required.

Further, if the ITC decides a complaint was legitimate, the agency could only force U.S. advertisers and payment companies to cut-off business with the foreign website, NOT search engines or Internet Service Providers, as had previously been required by both SOPA and PIPA. The OPEN Act also narrows the definition of what can websites can be targeted, saying that only those foreign sites that have “a limited purpose” aside from piracy or are clear piracy centers can be considered.

This is a good starting point for compromise. Without blocking out Search Engines or ISPs, the censorship issue is more or less removed. Sure, it sucks that advertisers and payment companies are cut off, but some punishment needs to be dealt out if the bill is to have any effect. Actually notifying the alleged rogue site also adds a bit in due process, but I admit that I haven't read the OPEN act. Furthermore, focusing on US Advertisers and US Payment companies means that the international issue is minimized. The US will respect foreign sovereignty (Non-US sites that work with non-US customers will be the least affected)

We can bitch and moan about "shitty bills" all day, or we can turn a new page and begin to think of an honest solution to the problem. We've all agreed that something should be done about Piracy, so lets start at OPEN. I haven't fully read the bill yet, but I prefer this productive approach over trying to ruing the careers of politicians because of a single issue.

[Qaanol]

Maddox makes a good point on this. http://maddox.xmission.com/

It feels odd for me to say it, but Maddox is right.

A boycott against one or two of the major companies that backed PIPA/SOPA/DMCA/ACTA/etc. has the potential to send a strong message about public opinion on intellectual property.

I think Disney is the most viable target, on account of its prominent roll in getting copyright laws to the draconian place they are now. For the boycot, I say not any subsidiaries, just Disney itself: movies, theme parks, and merchandise.

[Randomizer]

I just emailed Maddox saying I was in favor of a Disney boycott (his email is at the bottom of the page, and there's lots of companies to choose from if you'd prefer to suggest a different target). Like Maddox says, these two bills won't be the end of it.

I really like Disney. They have wonderful cartoons. As a fan, I think I could write a fairly convincing letter to them explaining my position. And if I have to go without their movies... I guess I can take one for the team.

[Ghostbear]

Almost everyone agrees that Piracy is a problem, and I'm sure we are all willing to work together to craft a solution.

You've said multiple times in this thread and others something along the lines of "almost everyone", and I take issue with it; nowhere near "almost everyone" that I interact with, or has posted here, or that I hear from, thinks piracy is a problem that needs a legislative solution- either because they feel it isn't a problem or they feel it's a problem not can be solved in any acceptable manner through legal action. I don't think we need to do a damn thing to punish or prevent piracy from a legal standpoint. To me, all of these bills- even the one's that aren't as toxically shitty as SOPA- are a hammer looking for a nail. Studies detailing the effects of piracy on businesses are mixed at best, and overall provide no consistency for the doom and gloom numbers. It might be an overall net negative, sure- but the evidence I've seen over the years provides no clear picture of something having a major negative impact. Some studies show a positive effect, some show a neutral, and some show a negative. Not all of those studies are perfect, but so long as I ignore the horrible BS paid for by the RIAA/MPAA/similar groups, no overall conclusion seems to rear its head in amount that I'd be confident in. Countries with weaker copyright protection laws (to my knowledge that includes: the entire rest of the planet) haven't all imploded into a death spiral because of it.

In short, maybe it is a problem, but it's not something we need to be wasting time trying to fix legislatively. I don't think any good (as in, with no or practically no room for abuse) law can be crafted to "solve" piracy. If such a law could be crafted, i do not think it would necessarily be worth passing. Saying that we need to do something about piracy is, to me, a big part of the problem why we end up with them attempting to pass laws like this: any copyright law passed in the US is going to be one that the major media companies will have their tendrils buried deeply in. Doing nothing is something I very much believe is a better option than doing something, because doing something has so little potential upside to it, while having so many ways it can be fucked up.

I can't think of a previous law attempting to prevent or lower piracy that hasn't made things worse overall: why should we keep trying for more?

[Sockmonkey]

I think Disney is the most viable target, on account of its prominent roll in getting copyright laws to the draconian place they are now.

Ultimately this is why I don't give a shit about the morality of pirating. They don't care about morality or protecting artists either. Just their bottom line.
Maddox may be depressing but he's right. The thing that scares me is that the one thing that can fight this and most of the other crap out there - information - is so easy for the jerkwads to corrupt just by spouting their own propaganda all over the place untill there's so much chaff out there that most people have no way to know what's actually happening.

[Soralin]

Apparently the media moguls are infuriated that Obama is not doing or saying what they paid him to do. The staggering sense of entitlement in these quotes is just mind boggling.

http://www.deadline.com/2012/01/exclusi ... acy-stand/

“Jim explained that this notion that the Hollywood community will continue giving regardless of its business interests has to be taken into consideration. The message was, ‘Don’t expect Hollywood to show up and say ‘Who do I write the check to’ anymore.”

The moguls are reminding Obama et al that, in the words of one studio chief, “God knows how much money we’ve given to Obama and the Democrats and yet they’re not supporting our interests"

Hmm, I wonder if anyone could be charged with bribery for this. I mean, bribery has been de facto legal for a long time now, because people have figured out the legal loopholes to work around it. But it's been de facto legal for so long now that people may have forgotten that they needed those loopholes, or what those loopholes were exactly, and inadvertently walked into an area where the law still applies.

[sardia]

I just emailed Maddox saying I was in favor of a Disney boycott (his email is at the bottom of the page, and there's lots of companies to choose from if you'd prefer to suggest a different target). Like Maddox says, these two bills won't be the end of it.

I really like Disney. They have wonderful cartoons. As a fan, I think I could write a fairly convincing letter to them explaining my position. And if I have to go without their movies... I guess I can take one for the team.

I read his article and scanned his list of companies for things that I could boycott. The ones that come to mind for me would be :
Nike, Marvel, Visa and Sony.
I can see myself avoiding buying Nike brand shoes, they're overpriced anyway, or telling my friends to avoid Marvel. This does mean a lot less movie theaters/rentals and more pirating to make up for it.
What is everyone else's plans for boycott?

[SlyReaper]

Apparently the media moguls are infuriated that Obama is not doing or saying what they paid him to do. The staggering sense of entitlement in these quotes is just mind boggling.

http://www.deadline.com/2012/01/exclusi ... acy-stand/

“Jim explained that this notion that the Hollywood community will continue giving regardless of its business interests has to be taken into consideration. The message was, ‘Don’t expect Hollywood to show up and say ‘Who do I write the check to’ anymore.”

The moguls are reminding Obama et al that, in the words of one studio chief, “God knows how much money we’ve given to Obama and the Democrats and yet they’re not supporting our interests"

Hmm, I wonder if anyone could be charged with bribery for this. I mean, bribery has been de facto legal for a long time now, because people have figured out the legal loopholes to work around it. But it's been de facto legal for so long now that people may have forgotten that they needed those loopholes, or what those loopholes were exactly, and inadvertently walked into an area where the law still applies.

It certainly doesn't help their case to openly announce that they donated money in exchange for laws being passed.

[LaserGuy]

PIPA is apparently being delayed "until there is wider agreement on a solution". I would suggest that this means it is delayed until after the elections.

[Dauric]

PIPA is apparently being delayed "until there is wider agreement on a solution". I would suggest that this means it is delayed until after the elections.

Nah, just until everyone isn't looking at SOPA/PIPA anymore. In that regard the months leading up to November are likely to be when the supporters will attempt to ram it through, when the public is looking at the campaigns and personalities of the elections and some congressthings are back in their districts defending their offices.

[marky66]

Great, I forgot to actually click 'submit' yesterday and now everyone has gotten back on topic. So I'll spoiler it:

Spoiler:

Regarding the extradition, in my mind there is little difference whether you actually touch a country's soil or merely exert some influence on the electrons inside a server that is on their soil. In either case you have entered sovereign territory, and if you commit what they deem a crime, you can be held responsible. By using the hosting services of another nation, you effectively agree to a contract* that you'll abide by their laws.

*Unless your country and the other one don't agree on whether you can legally enter contracts. That gets a little stickier.

If someone in the lawless sovereign island nation of Markyland hacks into a bank in Yourhometown, USA and steals all your money, are you you going to be content with the Feds saying, "well, in Markyland that is not illegal, so there was no crime?"

As for another proffered example, if you post something the Chinese don't approve on a server in China, yes they should have a right to prosecute you. If you posted it in Canada and someone else copied it to China, then I would agree that China does not have a legitimate beef with you.

[folkhero]

Nah, just until everyone isn't looking at SOPA/PIPA anymore. In that regard the months leading up to November are likely to be when the supporters will attempt to ram it through, when the public is looking at the campaigns and personalities of the elections and some congressthings are back in their districts defending their offices.

If Wednesday showed us anything, it's that Google and Wikipedia have the ability to make everyone look at something at the same time. I'm not sure why they wouldn't be able to do that again in the months leading up to November.

[Steax]

PIPA is apparently being delayed "until there is wider agreement on a solution". I would suggest that this means it is delayed until after the elections.

I would assume that would mean until after they get their pro-SOPA/PIPA campaigns and commercial oomph out.

[Griffin]

And then they can start insulting the public when the public doesn't respond, accusing them of stealing the commercials by watching them and then not writing in support for the bills.

[Steax]

I wouldn't be surprised at all if they start jabbing at every piracy-facilitating online company, suing as many as possible, and making claims of multi-billion dollar losses for each one.

Remember, this is from people who say "5 million jobs are threatened!" when they actually mean "we have 5 million people in the industry."

[Griffin]

And when they actually only have one twentieth of that. (There are only about 360 thousand people in the industry, last I checked. Was the evidence for that posted in this thread? I think thats where I got it.)

[Steax]

I pulled the 5 million quote from memory of another article, but this Forbes article gives a clear number from sen. Harry Reid: 2.2 million.

And if that doesn't make the perspective clear, Lamar Smith pulls out more numbers:

American intellectual property industries provide 19 million high-paying jobs and account for more than 60% of U.S. exports. The theft of America’s intellectual property costs the U.S. economy more than $100 billion annually and results in the loss of thousands of American jobs.

I wonder how many of the "intellectual property industries" are those that went dark in the protest.

Of course, he continues to show his blatant stupidity:

The online theft of American intellectual property is no different than the theft of products from a store. It is illegal and the law should be enforced both in the store and online.

In other news, I just found out that last month European politicians have descended into the battle, with this very clear statement:

We ask you to vote against SOPAand PROTECT IP and to work with us on effective laws, which enable a fair remuneration of artists and creators online, without violating fundamental rights or fragmenting the free and open internet as we know it.

Full letter here.

SOPA looks down, but not beat.

[Griffin]

I pulled the 5 million quote from memory of another article, but this Forbes article gives a clear number from sen. Harry Reid: 2.2 million.

The man is a liar who will say whatever he thinks he can get away with. What do you expect?

http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs038.htm

Actual number: around 362 thousand, as of 2008

Meanwhile, employment only in support of the top six SOPA opponents (Google, Cisco, Facebook, and a couple others I can't remember) is around 6 million.

Good to have a real grasp on the difference in scale, I think, and how few people we benefit with these sort of actions, compared to the people we hurt.

[maybeagnostic]

Good to have a real grasp on the difference in scale, I think, and how few people we benefit with these sort of actions, compared to the people we hurt.

It's also useful to keep in mind who the people on both sides are. After all finding a reasonable solution gives a general yet intangible benefit to society as a whole; accepting SOPA/PIPA has specific remunerative consequences for the people that decide which approach to take.