SOPA Strike?

[keastkannegaard]

A view on SOPA/PIPA from TED.

 

http://www.ted.com/talks/defend_our_freedom_to_share_or_why_sopa_is_a_bad_idea.html

[ginnyfizz]

First class honours degree in law in my case, TheCaptn, and I have actually read the Bill.

 

To cut to the chase and cut the crap, I tend to agree with Arthmoor and Dazzerfong. That whilst there is ambiguity and the potential for mischief and malice, I think that there is a lot of sound and fury and blind hysteria over this. The act is clearly directed at large scale commercial piracy where large amounts of moolah change hands. As has been mentioned here and elsewhere, sites that offer ripped off movies and music, sold at discount but sold for money nonetheless. Sites that offer counterfeit (or maybe even "fell off the back of a truck genuine")designer merchandise, anything with a logo, at discount prices but still making huge amounts of money.

 

So then ask yourself, what would ANY game company gain from having a pop at Nexus? The files on here are not themselves sold for profit. The site has a loud and clear policy on even talking about piracy. The mods that it hosts could even be called free advertising for the games themselves, as they enhance the replayability of the games and, as the manager of my local GAME store has said to me, the mods keep the sales of the PC version of Bethesda games in particular going long after they would normally have died the death. After all people are still modding Morrowind and Oblivion after a number of years. QED. Any game company that had a go at Nexus knows that they would just get a face full of custard pie and a huge amount of negative publicity.

[Arthmoor]

So the bill wont shut down websites with copyright violations, like AMVs on youtube? You do know you can download the videos, illegal, from Youtube by using different tools, aswell?

The DMCA could already tear them to shreds if the rights holders wished it to be so. Perhaps they don't. Perhaps they're fully aware that attacking Google in court is futile because of the amount of money involved. The point is, SOPA is not applicable to Google. Google is not a foreign company who is marketing stolen content/counterfeit products to US consumers.

 

It wont force companies like PayPal to stop transactions to websites that have copyright violations on the site or is linking to sites that violate a copyright?

It would be able to stop the US branch of PayPal from processing transactions to those sites, yes. After reading the bill, my understanding of it is that this would be impossible to enforce against the home branch in Singapore.

 

Or in Wikileak's case, because it might hurt the interest of the country on a political level...

Not applicable. Wikileaks got hammered because they were trafficking in stolen classified documents. There are already existing laws on the books allowing the federal government to take action against companies aiding and abetting their criminal enterprise. There are currently no such laws on the books specifically for copyright infringement.

 

Or block a site like Nexus that deal in mods, where a lot are based on copyrights?

The legal mods here are already licensed for distribution under the EULAs for the various devkits. So no, there would be no action taken in most cases. Therefore Nexus does not qualify as a site intended for the facilitation of criminal copyright infringement.

 

It wont force seach engines like Google or Yahoo remove sites that have copyright violations on the site?

The DMCA already provides for this for domestic US companies linking to infringing work on US sites. SOPA would simply extend this notice and takwdown system to links to foreign sites engaged in the same activity.

 

Please do, I'll wait. When I looked I could only find snippits, apparently from the MPAA's legal team, but without any full-sentence quotes let alone a full text reference.

I'd actually really appreciate it if you'd present a well researched challenge. I'm open to the possibility that I've got this all wrong, but when I tried to falsify my own position I couldn't find any credible sources that were against it.

Can't guarantee that such an effort will meet your standards for "well researched" but I'll see what I can do - later. That said, I'd be curious to know what you consider credible sources? Are not the MPAA/RIAA legal teams credible on issues of law, as you suggest the experts you cited are? Cause the ones you linked for me to look at aren't who *I* consider credible sources.

 

 

It's not really the same at all. History only has one objective truth, but it's largely obscured.

Except the bill says one thing, but a whole lot of people out there are claiming it says another thing entirely. Claims as ridiculous as the end of free speech and the end of e-commerce. Neither of which I can find outlined in the bill itself. Which is why it helps to skip the crap and go to the source.

 

You're not actually referring to the bill, you're just waving it like a flag. A reference would be, say a quote from Section 103 a (1.B.ii), hopefully accompanied by your explanation for why that -doesn't- create an unreasonable demand for a site like YouTube (or Nexus) to constantly police every piece of content for copyright infringement simply to avoid being labeled a 'Dedicated Thief'... Y'know, for example.

For starters, because Google is a US based company, not foreign. So this legislation does not apply to them. I've already told you what they fall under - the DMCA. They could be torn to ribbons at any time for all the stuff they have up there were the rights holders inclined to do so. Plus, Google doesn't even fit the conditions to be considered a site for the purpose of infringing activity under SOPA, as I'm reading it. I'd have to go find "section 501 or 1201 of title 17" to know what those specific violations refer to, but there's a pretty good chance Google isn't violating them. Besides, Google has immunity according to the 9th circuit.

 

And if you're going to go ahead and do that, since you've already stated that your position is based on a reading of the bill and not independent, qualified analysis; then I'd like a little more information on your qualifications vis à vis interpretation and practice.

Trying to disqualify the argument because I'm somehow not allowed to have an opinion on it? Are only lawyers allowed to have opinions based on legal text?

 

My qualifications: I can read.

[FlyingHigh10000000]

Personal opinions aside, it looks like SOPA and PIPA are closer to /not/ passing. ;)

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16623831

 

Great news for those of us against these bills.

 

The MPAA's responses to the protests are more than enough to help anyone who hasn't hardened themselves against progress decide where they stand. "irresponsible" "stunt". Not smart for the MPAA to just offhandedly label the general consensus around the internet as those two things. They're just going to make even more enemies, and fuel the fire already raging against their efforts to end freedom.

[nosisab]

@Arthmoor

 

what you seen oblivious or want not to see is although DMCA cover most the issues it does not defines the mechanisms to enforce and to allow to take measures almost "at will", against anything deemed is harming the unlimited scope of IP (you know, there is no definition of what is protected, it states only "All rights..."). Under those circumstances they can put down your site because they think "you" look like Peter Pan in your photography. Ok, I'm purposefully exaggerating but not as much as you may think.

 

Actually, by the almost unlimited scope of IP, it can be any reason.

 

The contradiction in your argumentation is, if DMCA were enough, why the heck they are trying to pass these two new bills?

 

And because they already passed DMCA they can try now SOPA and PIPA, and if they pass them what prevent another yet more restricting/controlling motion to be attempted....

 

PS: Tracing a parallel with the military dictatorship US helped to implant in my country, all the motions to restrict/censor the people and to expand the right to torture and kill whoever and whatever they deemed "dangerous" to the regime was called "Act" (Ato Institucional # ...). In a way US seems to be trying to do something in the line in the own country now.

Edited January 19, 2012 by nosisab

[TheCaptn]

First class honours degree in law in my case, TheCaptn, and I have actually read the Bill.

Awesome! I look forward to your input then.

 

 

The act is clearly directed at large scale commercial piracy where large amounts of moolah change hands. As has been mentioned here and elsewhere, sites that offer ripped off movies and music, sold at discount but sold for money nonetheless. Sites that offer counterfeit (or maybe even "fell off the back of a truck genuine")designer merchandise, anything with a logo, at discount prices but still making huge amounts of money.

Ok, lets say that for argument's sake the legislation would work as intended in a technical sense (I don't believe that, but since you're a lawyer and I'm a historian we're better off sticking to the academic problems). So hypothetically it would work in targeting the folks it wants to target, the torrent sites, the purveyors of counterfeit products, etc.

The main fears still remain:

 

1) Scope for abuse: That the definitions of "deliberate theft" are broad enough to threaten the Safe Harbor provisions in the DMCA by making not only content hosts, but even portals which only link to content, and search engine directories responsible for constantly policing that content (driving costs up) lest they open themselves up to that label?

 

2) Guilty till proven innocent: That an entire domain can be targeted when the alleged infringement may only be occurring in a single subdomain, webpage, file or even a link. And that sites blocked on such an allegation bear the burden of proof in establishing their non-infringement. Also that PIPA still allows industry to take what amounts to independent civil action through the Justice Department (i.e. there's no protection against rubber-stamping)

 

3) Income risks: That the ad revenue and other forms of income can be targeted on an allegation rather than established infringement, and that recovery of lost revenue in cases where the site is able to prove its non-infringement require that site to go on and prove that the allegation was known to be false at the time it was made (an almost impossible task).

 

4) Whoops! Jail: That the definitions of commercial and non-commercial conduct are so vague that they potentially criminalise activities that the law currently protects, such as creating video content that doesn't quite meet the Fair Use provisions, despite complying with appropriate legal directives such as DMCA takedown notices.

 

 

So then ask yourself, what would ANY game company gain from having a pop at Nexus?

I'm taking this one separately because again I immediately think of Zenimax's DMCA notice to Skyrim Mods Weekly. Since there's no way that they could have mistaken the Fair Use nature of gameplay footage with an audio commentary track, I think the speculation that they knowingly submitted a fraudulent complaint for the purpose of removing 'killable children' from the public eye during the game's peak media exposure is quite fair. The reason they didn't also target Nexus (the source of the mod) may simply come down to it's 2+ million members versus the 500-1000 subscribers that MMOxReview had at the time, coupled with that video's unexpected popularity..

 

 

The files on here are not themselves sold for profit. The site has a loud and clear policy on even talking about piracy. The mods that it hosts could even be called free advertising for the games themselves, as they enhance the replayability of the games and, as the manager of my local GAME store has said to me, the mods keep the sales of the PC version of Bethesda games in particular going long after they would normally have died the death. After all people are still modding Morrowind and Oblivion after a number of years. QED. Any game company that had a go at Nexus knows that they would just get a face full of custard pie and a huge amount of negative publicity.

The files aren't sold, but the site clearly depends on ad revenue. And how much of that ad infrastructure is based in the US?

For Fallout: New Vegas I made a follower mod for my own use that included audio captures of Colleen Delany (now featured in Skyrim) sourced from Deathlands series of audiobooks by GraphicAudio. I believe I was within my rights for personal use, but clearly if I'd distributed that it would have been a copyright infringement. If I'd uploaded it to Nexus then the site may eventually have received a DMCA notice from GraphicAudio, or perhaps the file might have been unpopular and simply slipped by completely unnoticed.

Imagine the same scenario under the proposed laws. The moment I upload that file I'm potentially putting Nexus at risk of being labeled a 'deliberate thief', and the longer the file is available the more deliberate it looks. Nexus bears the responsibility for policing all of its content for that kind of infringement, so are the staff going to playtest every single mod before making them available? That's a tall order.

In that situation, say the media corporations or DoJ are looking target Nexus for whatever reason (unlikely in truth, but an example that may be of much greater concern to other legitimate sites), all they'd have to do is monitor Nexus better than it can monitor itself. As soon as something slips through, like my follower mod, and if the site were hosted in the US (which it's not) they'd have the grounds they need not only to remove that mod, not even to shut down the Skyrim Nexus, but to take down the entire Nexus network offline for a time. However, since apparently Nexus is UK hosted, they'd have to resort to cutting off all the possible revenue streams that they have jurisdiction over. That's still potentially a huge hit to the finances of a site which may, based upon later legal proceedings, not have done anything truly wrong.

 

 

Can't guarantee that such an effort will meet your standards for "well researched" but I'll see what I can do - later. That said, I'd be curious to know what you consider credible sources? Are not the MPAA/RIAA legal teams credible on issues of law, as you suggest the experts you cited are? Cause the ones you linked for me to look at aren't who *I* consider credible sources.

Since it's the job of the MPAA legal team to find a way to get these laws passed, which presumably includes some attempts to manage public opinion, no I don't consider them a credible source. They don't even need to lie, indeed I don't expect they would, but it's far too easy to obfuscate... However I do realise I've put you in a bit of a tight spot, since I really couldn't find any contrary academic opinions; so perhaps we could agree that legal advice sought by and provided to elected representatives or media outlets is reliable enough (and I didn't specifically look for it, so maybe it's out there)?

 

 

Except the bill says one thing, but a whole lot of people out there are claiming it says another thing entirely. Claims as ridiculous as the end of free speech and the end of e-commerce. Neither of which I can find outlined in the bill itself. Which is why it helps to skip the crap and go to the source.

No bill ever states, in a nice, clear fashion "this bill will be ineffective in its implementation, and have negative long-term outcomes"; and yet from time to time we still end up with poor legislation that demands repeal... This is why we need the scrutiny of legal academics with a long experience of the practice of law, since they have a great deal of insight into the potential pitfalls of unclear language, broad definitions and insufficient oversight.

It's true, that academic analysis can get hyped in the media reporting, and then again in the public rumor-mill, but simply pointing out that the hype exists doesn't actually contribute anything towards answering the original concerns of those academics. That's why I try to cut through the hype and go direct to the academic opinions (and in this case the specialist technical opinions too).

 

 

For starters, because Google is a US based company, not foreign. So this legislation does not apply to them. I've already told you what they fall under - the DMCA. They could be torn to ribbons at any time for all the stuff they have up there were the rights holders inclined to do so. Plus, Google doesn't even fit the conditions to be considered a site for the purpose of infringing activity under SOPA, as I'm reading it. I'd have to go find "section 501 or 1201 of title 17" to know what those specific violations refer to, but there's a pretty good chance Google isn't violating them. Besides, Google has immunity according to the 9th circuit.

You might want to take another look at SOPA Section 102 and PIPA Second 3. For obvious reasons these laws can -only- apply within the US, since that's all the US Government has jurisdiction over. SOPA targets US sites and US sites that link to foreign domains. PIPA targets foreign sites and domains by cutting off any potential relationships or transits through US sites, and in particular financial relationships (such as Google Ads and Amazon or YouTube partnerships).

Also, correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't new legislation override the rulings based on the old legislation, forcing the process to start over in establishing a new precedent? The 9th circuit ruling protects a site which "passively displays content that is created entirely by third parties", but that's the exact Safe Harbor protection that SOPA sections 102 and 103 seem to be targeting.

Maybe the 9th Circuit will again cement that protection, or something similar a few years down the track, but do we really want to rely on that during the legislative draft process?

 

 

Trying to disqualify the argument because I'm somehow not allowed to have an opinion on it? Are only lawyers allowed to have opinions based on legal text?

Only because you weren't bothering to qualify your opinion with any reasoning more sound than "it's just my opinion". That's an intellectually disreputable method of protecting one's position from critical analysis, and it rubs me the wrong way... The good news is that now that you're presenting a case based on referenced material, like that 9th Circuit Court ruling, we can have a proper debate, like gentlemen.

Edited January 19, 2012 by TheCaptn

[Fatalmasterpiece]

You can't simply throw a notice out there and have a site removed from the internet.

 

Unless you piss off the US government and are called Wikileaks. In which case you don't even need to formerly have charges filed against you to have your host forced to drop you and letters sent from the Pentagon to Vsia and Paypal to no longer handle your letigimate financial business.

Trafficking in stolen classified documents will eventually catch up to you, as it did with Assange. SOPA-style legislation doesn't need to exist for that to cause problems. You already have much more effective laws on the books to deal with this.

 

If you really want to do something about laws like this, Vote those idiots out of office. Quit voting for the same lying politicians over and over.

And we have a winner! This is the only effective means to send a message to Washington. Short of threatening to vote them out, they DO NOT CARE what a bunch of website operators think of it. Until they actually hear from people through the channels they expect to hear from them, they're going to act on representing who they were elected to represent. Like it or not, the Hollywood corporations behind this bill are part of that bloc of people to be represented.

 

There are laws that deal with interfering in the free press and shutting down a legitimate news company via internet blacklisting and control of non-government "private" banking systems? Can you please cite some, instead of making vague generalizations? I'm sure if you do find them they would fall under some blanket of espionage or national security but no laws, no -charges- have been brought up. Just like in GTMO the US government shows it cares nothing for due process.

 

And if you think that they "DO NOT CARE" then perhaps you will find it interesting to learn eight US lawmakers are already abandoning SOPA after yesterday's blackout. Looks like a bunch of website operators like Wikipedia are making a difference. If you still think voting makes a difference you have got your head in the sand; right where the US government wants it to be.

[ginnyfizz]

Unless I am missing something, then the eight US lawmakers who have yanked their support for SOPA have done so because they fear a backlash at the polls. Therefore bben46 and Arthmoor are right to say that your vote counts. Undoubtedly, what has shoved the issue and the prospects of them losing their seats right in their faces is the internet blackout by certain sites.

 

@TheCapn, I'm glad you have at least admitted that a targetting of the Nexus is unlikely. Seriously, any games company would be cutting off their noses to spite their faces in doing that. It would not be a pragmatic thing to do and would potentially cost them far more than they stood to gain. Why on earth they would want to bomb the modding community I cannot imagine.

 

I actually share those concerns that you have enumerated. The presumption of innocence and Blackstone's principle that "better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer", are sacrosanct as far as I am concerned. The burden of proof MUST be on the prosecution. And despite my respect for the USA in many ways, I am aware that their justice system is as open to abuse of process as any, just as ours in the UK is.

 

But also take note that the US has already managed to demand the extradition of a British man for copyright infringement (despite the fact that what he has done is not a crime in the UK) BEFORE SOPA has been enacted, so they can already use the sledgehammer to crack a nut approach. Whether or not SOPA would make things any worse is a moot point.

 

Also take heart from the fact that two of Britain's biggest ISP's are going to court over a somewhat similar law that we enacted the other year. I don't know how supine your ISP's are in the USA but we certainly weren't expecting BT (my ISP as it happens) to rebel against our Government, so there's always hope that the ISP's could go "Aw nuts!"

[FlyingHigh10000000]

And if you think that they "DO NOT CARE" then perhaps you will find it interesting to learn eight US lawmakers are already abandoning SOPA after yesterday's blackout. Looks like a bunch of website operators like Wikipedia are making a difference. If you still think voting makes a difference you have got your head in the sand; right where the US government wants it to be.

 

This, SO MUCH. With eight already having dropped support, and the future much more uncertain, it's a given that the blackout made a difference; that it opened the eyes of the public to the kind of things that SOPA and PIPA could bring to the internet.

[Jeoshua]

I think probably the biggest thing that lawmakers need to understand is this:

 

There is no way to stop piracy dead in it's tracks. And more than that, piracy does not make a significant dent in anyone's sales. While it is true that if everyone that had a certain piece of media had paid for it, the companies involved would have made more money... but what is NOT true is whether those people would have bought it were they unable to pirate it. Most of the time, the answer to that is "No, they would not have it". They were never going to be a source of income. A good example is the amount of people who are on New Vegas forums talking about how they pirated the game. It's $5.99 on Steam, and the Ultimate Edition is going to be out very soon. But did they spend even that piddling amount of money? No. They did not.

 

And because of people who wouldn't buy a game or a song (99 cents on iTunes), some lawmakers have pushed forward some Orwellian named bill that supposedly will stop this. In the process, they undermine much of what the Internet is about: Free exchange on information. It is a cornerstone of our modern society, and it's lack can be seen in places like China.

 

I'm not saying that SOPA is like Chinese Censorship, but what I AM saying is that it starts us down a slippery slope on VERY shaky grounds. "Denying Pirates the Ability To Use Host Services" does not stop them from being able to type in their IPs. So the Piracy angle is not even covered, let alone stopped. These are people who are known to risk viruses, install special software to crack games, and use port-hopping anonymizers to keep people from tracking them down. Does anyone really think having to type 4 triplets to get to a website is going to even slow them down, or discourage them? Hell, it'll just give them street cred.

 

That's why I don't support SOPA. Or PIPA. Or anything else that would claim to protect corporations in a manner which is not subject to oversight, or even effective at all.