Stop Online Piracy Act

Overheal

So basically, if a user in the Tech forum decides to posts links to pirated software, boards.ie could be blocked to US browsers.

And worse, this is being decided by people in Washington who barely have a grasp on how the internet actually functions.



Additional Infographic: http://sociable.co/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/SOPA-business-infographic-488x2761.png

Manic Moran

You're not going to make me go searching for the text of the proposed legislation again, are you?

I have long ago stopped taking basic overviews of legislation in the media at face value, let alone infographics provided by, shall we say, less than unbiased organisations.

NTM

Overheal

I wont, I will peruse it later but i've been getting different media outlets feeding me two sides of the story lately. I will have to get a look at it this evening after work.

FreudianSlippers

I don't have time at the moment to really comment on this, but this is one of the most draconian and dreadful pieces of legislation I have seen in a VERY long time (and that includes the blasphemy thrown into the Defamation Act 2009 and the Legal Services Bill 2011 in this jurisdiction).

ressem

This is the bill I think?

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-3261

Granting immunity to service providers for taking

technically feasible and reasonable measures designed to prevent access by its subscribers located within the United States to the foreign infringing site

including messing with their DNS, possibly including messing with their secure digital certification infrastructure?

Ill judged choices in this area could put companies out of business. Mail and web traffic being directing to the wrong servers / competing businesses?

RichieC

Google and facebook should leave the US and take the jobs with them if this passes.

sink

I've been reading up on this and it seems to me to be the stupidest law since the Volstead act. I can't believe politicians are even contemplating this.

Just like alcohol and drugs, trying to eradicate piracy is unachievable and the enforcement of it causes more harm than piracy itself.

Manic Moran

ressem wrote: »

This is the bill I think?

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-3261

Granting immunity to service providers for taking

technically feasible and reasonable measures designed to prevent access by its subscribers located within the United States to the foreign infringing site

including messing with their DNS, possibly including messing with their secure digital certification infrastructure?

Ill judged choices in this area could put companies out of business. Mail and web traffic being directing to the wrong servers / competing businesses?

I'm not sure I'm reading the same out of it. For starters, it seems that the ISPs or advertising agencies need only block those sites which have been identified by the government and a court order to block it obtained, so there is no duty for a forum such as Boards to attempt to self police. Secondly, blocking access by the provider isn't that hard and doesn't mess with the Web at large, as anyone who has tried to get onto unapproved web sites at work has doubtless noticed. Thirdly, the ' technically feasible' line is a wonderful cop out which even further reduces provider liability: Similar verbiage was used in a California firearms law which, after a couple of years, turned out to be simply a case of the legislature wasting their time as though the required technology was theoretically possible, the application was not.

Now, it's always possible I'm missing something, but I would need a better explanation of what I'm missing before claiming that the sky is falling.

Sabre0001

I was asked to post my thesis here - takes the bill and puts it into practical perspective (bear in mind, this was written during the summer as well...perhaps there was more uncertainty then - although very little is being clarified or put into perspective)

Mark O'Beirne wrote:

The scene was the Evolution Gaming Series (EVO) fighting game tournament in 2004 in a ballroom in a Las Vegas hotel. Japan’s Daigo Umehara faced America’s Justin Wong in the Grand Final of Street Fighter III: Third Strike, but had just a sliver of life remaining. A mistake or blocked attack meant defeat. Third Strike had the novel feature of being able to parry an attack to avoid taking any damage. However, as crazy as it sounds, this meant pressing forward at the right moment…into the attack. As Justin unleashed a 17 hit super attack, it was Daigo’s only option. Any mistimed forward press or lapse in concentration would mean defeat.

As he parried each attack, Justin became more desperate. The situation was out of his control and he could only watch as Daigo’s character flashed blue with each successful parry. The crowd were on their feet from the moment Daigo started parrying and were screaming their lungs out throughout. After the last parry, Daigo pounced with a flurry of attacks that led into a super attack of his own.

That incident became known as ‘EVO Moment #37’ and went down in fighting game lore. It gained worldwide notoriety and was a popular clip on YouTube for years. Even seven years on, it is the stuff that legends are made of. In the build up to EVO 2011, that moment was recreated in an 8-bit retro art style and the release of Street Fighter III: Third Strike Online challenged players to complete the parry and finishing combo as part of a trial.

It was the moment that helped many people discover the fighting game scene and the idea of competition through videogames. Tournament organiser and commentator, Alex Jebailey, acknowledged the importance of this single moment. He said, “That’s pretty much what started a lot of this.” Videogame entertainment attorney David Graham said that it was a great video because it showcased the action itself and the reaction. He said that it showed “how we get hype and go crazy” and added that people seemed to like that. The video appeared to help encourage players to enter other tournaments and inspired people within the community to upload videos more.

However, the streaming and public broadcast of videogame content via services such as YouTube may be under threat with the proposition of S.978 in the United States which aims to “amend the criminal penalty provision for criminal infringement of a copyright, and for other purposes.” While boring, the current copyright law and the implications of change are important to understand. As it currently stands, streaming videogame content or uploading it to YouTube is illegal. It is classified as a misdemeanour, which comes with a penalty of up to one year in jail. It is rare to hear of someone uploading game content to YouTube being prosecuted. Many videogame developers tend to look the other way as additional coverage of a game helps them. This was the view of Jebailey and, fighting game talk show presenter, Ryan Gutierrez among others. Gutierrez was keen to highlight that people watching highly skilled players may be more inclined to purchase a game because it looks fun. He emphasised that streams and YouTube content can help boost game sales “if you take advantage of the fact that all these people are basically advertising your game for free”. Senior Vice-President of Capcom, Christian Svensson, has also stated that “historically we have been helped by these activities.”

The revised bill would make streaming and providing YouTube content of videogames a felony, punishable by up to five years in prison. Graham explained that under American copyright law, there is no difference between videogame content and other media such as film. He said, “The audio-visual part of the videogame, the sights and sounds on screen, are indistinguishable legally from a TV show or a film.” As many of the fighting game community outlined, it is unlikely that videogame streamers and YouTube producers were the targets of this bill. The explanation from Graham provides an unfortunate reality: under the new bill, they would be targets.

Live streams and YouTube content are beneficial for both the gaming community and game developers. As Gutierrez said, it is essentially free advertising for game developers. Perhaps, if after watching a live stream or some footage of a fighting game tournament, people will feel more inclined to purchase a game. It also raises the awareness of titles or keeps them in the public consciousness. Irish tournament organiser Daniel Madden mentioned that there were no major releases of fighting games for several years, but videos on YouTube kept fighting games “in the collective psyche” of gamers.

Naturally, the gaming community has benefited from content being published on the internet. Jebailey commented that “streaming is the big thing now.” The fighting game community saw rapid increases in the number of players attending tournaments and the number of people watching footage. Graham explained that the parry video featuring Daigo Umehara and Justin Wong was one of the reasons that more people started recording footage. As a commentator, he saw that several years ago they were delighted if 1,000 people watched a stream, whereas the EVO finals in 2011 attracted over two million unique viewers from around the world over the course of the weekend.

This scene grows and builds itself organically. Jebailey and Gutierrez highlighted that each stream and tournament helps the next. As Gutierrez said, “a rising tide raises all ships.” It is a cycle that is not reliant on external factors and one that any tournament, stream or YouTube channel can become a part of. In fact, Graham highlighted that smaller tournaments are very important for getting new viewers and inviting new people into the community. He said that these tournaments allow viewers to get to know the players and their personalities. This builds an emotional connection so that when that player is competing at a major event, viewers will want to cheer for them. Both Gutierrez and his partner in crime from Cross Counter TV, Mike Ross, are personalities within the fighting game community. They have fans that cheer them on passionately and are genuinely disappointed if results don’t fall favourably.

This is also relevant closer to home. Irish tournament broadcaster, Brian Quigley, has been recording videos from Irish tournaments for over a year. He has seen that these videos “are attracting more and more people to the scene”. Firstly, they advertise the existence of a competitive scene and a community, and it also builds this connection with viewers that Graham mentioned. This feeds into what Jebailey mentioned: “By doing all these YouTube videos, it gets more content out there for people to be more aware of Street Fighter and the scene.” This can only be a good thing for communities around the world.

YouTube videos have a worldwide audience because of their nature, which means that viewers from overseas can become fans of American or Japanese players, but Irish players can gain fans of their own. Quigley highlighted that when a group attended a tournament in France, several of the French players knew of Irish players and actually liked watching their footage. As Madden said, streams and YouTube videos “have made names a lot bigger”. This clearly applies to all names within the scene rather than the top dogs within the tournament circuit. Naturally, the scale of the following varies depending on the player and the scene that they are involved in.

Irish players have grown fond of tournament streams and many could be considered fans of the American scene because of videos and streams. Both Quigley and Madden said that they would be more inclined to watch a stream rather than TV now. Several of the fighting game community attended an event in Dublin to watch the EVO live stream overnight. Streams have encouraged this passion to the extent that players travelled from around Ireland to attend this event, cheer on their favourite players and hopefully catch a glimpse of an Irish representative. Quigley said that without the extensive coverage, it is unlikely that he would be following the scene as closely.

As it currently stands, the only notable copyright case in recent years was due to leaked videos involving new characters for Super Street Fighter IV: Arcade Edition. Capcom was affected by this and notified YouTube to get the footage taken down. As a result of YouTube’s policy on copyright infringements, some accounts went over the number of allowed “strikes” and were deleted entirely. This is something that annoyed Gutierrez as it put Cross Counter in a difficult situation as well. This “knee jerk” reaction as he called it made content producers, including the Cross Counter team, afraid to put up videos. He understood why they did it, but at the same time he thought that they could have used it as publicity and simply admitted that the characters were in the game, just waiting to be unlocked.

It is this fear that can be seen regarding the latest anti-streaming bill. The penalties are too great that, if implemented, broadcasters and content producers will want to take the risk. Fear of being prosecuted will hurt the competitive scene and the communities that have built up around fighting games. This is one aspect that was agreed on across the board.

An anti-streaming bill would certainly impact immediately on the competitive scene within the United States. However, its effect could potentially be felt in Ireland. As Graham explained, it may cause companies such as YouTube to reconsider uploading policies and may result in a blanket ban on videogame content unless producers have proof of a license. Jebailey and Gutierrez highlighted that this bill could hurt game developers in the long run. Gutierrez said that YouTube videos almost act as a shared property with developers providing the medium through which players provide the performance.

Capcom’s response to the proposed bill is that the community has certainly helped the company and that the efforts of people with good intentions will be supported. Capcom has also implemented a license into Street Fighter III: Third Strike Edition Online that allows users to post their videos directly to YouTube, and indicated that it is looking into enabling streaming directly from games. The fighting game community is aware that it is not videogame developers coming after them; if they wanted to, they would already. The issue with the wording outlined is that it implies that licenses for some titles will be awarded individually rather than across the board. This would mean that all content producers would have to enter negotiations with Capcom and acquire a license to distribute content. Graham noted that “historically, companies have been pretty reticent to give that out”. The likes of EVO and other large scale tournaments would be fine in this regard, but smaller tournaments that are vital for the continued growth and exposure of the scene could have more difficulty.

It could be easy to dismiss this as scare mongering. After all, American law has no direct consequences internationally. Broadcasters in Ireland cannot face a prison sentence. However, other governments are starting to take notice of streaming and its influence. The Italian government recently outlined a copyright bill that would implicate anyone accused of breaking copyright law. One of the most worrying elements of this bill is that anyone can accuse a person of breaking copyright law, rather than just the copyright holder. What is the penalty for being accused of breaking copyright law? The alleged offender would be banned from the internet. While this sounds like something designed to catch out people who are unfamiliar with how the internet works, similar to warning against typing “Google” into Google, it signifies that streaming is considered a threat to traditional media.

It is the uncertainty involved that is unsettling for content producers and fighting game enthusiasts worldwide. There is nothing about this bill that appears straightforward. Graham explained that there is no way to write a law that specifically targets the streaming or uploading of TV shows and film, and so on, without incorporating videogames. Even though the international reach of this bill would be limited, YouTube’s base in America could make all content producers feel an effect of one kind or another. While the bill may not pass, as several interviewees said, “You just never know.” There is a long road ahead, but gamers, viewers and content producers must keep their ears to the ground.

Manic Moran

Interesting read, but for the purposes of debate, I'm going to sharpshoot you a bit.

Firstly, you state that the uploading of video game footage is illegal, classified as a misdemeanor. First question is "are you sure, and under what law?"

The reason I ask is that I work for a relatively successful computer game company and by some coincidence, the legal status of uploading youtube videos of a game came up in conversation today. (Actually, it came up because a player wanted to make sure there were no legal issues with having our renders on his credit card: some banks allow you to place your own choice of image on your card). Our position is that the game is simply an artistic tool, but the creative i.p. belongs to the player: To assert copyright ownership would be akin to having Playskool assert ownership of a video involving a baby playing in the bath because they made the bath toys or Sony asserting ownership because it was filmed with their camera. You will note, for example, that games which involve cars are fine as long as the logos are not visible: An example are all the cars on the bridge in Modern Warfare 2 which are very obviously Crown Victorias but without the blue Ford logo or "Crown Victoria" badge on the back. Evidently the game manufacturer had no permission to use the registered trade mark, but the fundamental design is very obviously a Ford in the same manner that a Youtube video of our game can only be from the game.

Secondly, even if the assertion that any uploading is illegal is in fact correct, then the passage of the OP's Act doesn't change such activities from being legal to being illegal. And if the premise is right that the video game manufacturers don't mind the uploading due to the publicity (which I'll agree with) then the legislation linked to above won't change that either: Both now, or with the passage of the new bill, enforcement action would be solely initiated by the government with the judicial system. This seems to be molehill territory.

NTM

RichieC

Did anyone see the pro SOPA ad?
such a base appeal to emotion it would make you sick "they're stealing american jobs"

I would oppose such legislation based on that alone.

we'll see what jobs are being stolen when isps and the like start fleeing rhese draconian measures

Sabre0001

Manic Moran wrote: »

Interesting read, but for the purposes of debate, I'm going to sharpshoot you a bit.

Firstly, you state that the uploading of video game footage is illegal, classified as a misdemeanor. First question is "are you sure, and under what law?"

The reason I ask is that I work for a relatively successful computer game company and by some coincidence, the legal status of uploading youtube videos of a game came up in conversation today. (Actually, it came up because a player wanted to make sure there were no legal issues with having our renders on his credit card: some banks allow you to place your own choice of image on your card). Our position is that the game is simply an artistic tool, but the creative i.p. belongs to the player: To assert copyright ownership would be akin to having Playskool assert ownership of a video involving a baby playing in the bath because they made the bath toys or Sony asserting ownership because it was filmed with their camera. You will note, for example, that games which involve cars are fine as long as the logos are not visible: An example are all the cars on the bridge in Modern Warfare 2 which are very obviously Crown Victorias but without the blue Ford logo or "Crown Victoria" badge on the back. Evidently the game manufacturer had no permission to use the registered trade mark, but the fundamental design is very obviously a Ford in the same manner that a Youtube video of our game can only be from the game.

Secondly, even if the assertion that any uploading is illegal is in fact correct, then the passage of the OP's Act doesn't change such activities from being legal to being illegal. And if the premise is right that the video game manufacturers don't mind the uploading due to the publicity (which I'll agree with) then the legislation linked to above won't change that either: Both now, or with the passage of the new bill, enforcement action would be solely initiated by the government with the judicial system. This seems to be molehill territory.

NTM

Thanks for the comments.

One of my interviewees (David Graham) is an attorney involved in the area of videogames and digital entertainment (dream job eh?!). He gave me the technical advice on how things currently stand. Of course, different companies take different approaches - MW3 and Minecraft are two games that are very popular on YouTube and probably have benefited from the exposure.

HOWEVER, at any time, Activision and so on could step in and have videos pulled. My example was Capcom getting on to YouTube about leaked characters. This was recorded from arcades where the characters had been unlocked and it was still a player's performance - but it crossed the line.

The main problem with the bill is that (let's stick to the US), it is no longer the actual copyright holder that has to monitor and issue warnings / complaints. It becomes a federal matter and YouTube (and other hosting sites) are likely to take less risk because they could be faced with a shut down order. In addition, Americans get penalised more heavily - a felony makes it harder for them to get work and strips them of certain perks (Sorry the details are scarce, but it was of less relevance so it hasn't stuck with me! )

So for the videogame industry, they will have to offer licenses to all videogame purchasers (in the license) or to select individuals (leaving the rest at risk).

But as I say, currently videogame developers appear to be on the side of publicity and the gamers. It's the uncertainty that is the main problem with the bill. Afterall, the powers-that-be mightn't be staffed well enough, have the right resources and so on. It's just the uncertainty that gets people (especially those directly affected as I spoke to).

simplistic2

Sad, but totally predictable, the US is dying from an overdose of control. The next decade will be very dark indeed for the people trapped under the psychopaths of that place. More fences to be built, confines to get tighter.

RichieC

even if this isnt the doomsday legislation it appears to be it will certainly increase the cost of doing business. "they're stealing american jobs" :rolleyes:

FreudianSlippers

Manic Moran wrote: »

Interesting read, but for the purposes of debate, I'm going to sharpshoot you a bit.

Firstly, you state that the uploading of video game footage is illegal, classified as a misdemeanor. First question is "are you sure, and under what law?"

The reason I ask is that I work for a relatively successful computer game company and by some coincidence, the legal status of uploading youtube videos of a game came up in conversation today. (Actually, it came up because a player wanted to make sure there were no legal issues with having our renders on his credit card: some banks allow you to place your own choice of image on your card). Our position is that the game is simply an artistic tool, but the creative i.p. belongs to the player: To assert copyright ownership would be akin to having Playskool assert ownership of a video involving a baby playing in the bath because they made the bath toys or Sony asserting ownership because it was filmed with their camera. You will note, for example, that games which involve cars are fine as long as the logos are not visible: An example are all the cars on the bridge in Modern Warfare 2 which are very obviously Crown Victorias but without the blue Ford logo or "Crown Victoria" badge on the back. Evidently the game manufacturer had no permission to use the registered trade mark, but the fundamental design is very obviously a Ford in the same manner that a Youtube video of our game can only be from the game.

While I'm not disagreeing with the general nature of your post, I feel that the quoted basis for same is not necessarily correct from and intellectual property law standpoint.

Our position is that the game is simply an artistic tool, but the creative i.p. belongs to the player

That may be your position, but it is not clearly so under current laws. Effectively, every motion that can be carried out has to be created by your graphics department. The player is not creating any new or original content other than movements pre-determined by the creative team.

To assert copyright ownership would be akin to having Playskool assert ownership of a video involving a baby playing in the bath because they made the bath toys or Sony asserting ownership because it was filmed with their camera.

No. You've made the mistake of going slightly too far IMO. Playskool could certainly assert their protest to the use of their intellectual property in the video. The big difference here is that in video games, all of that material is artwork which has been created by the company; whether a company feels they need to prosecute for the effective use of said artwork is neither here nor there.

There may be fair use issues, etc. but I think it would be hard to compare fairly the use of a video made on a sony camera to the uploading of a picture of some video game graphic which someone took hours or days creating.

that games which involve cars are fine as long as the logos are not visible: An example are all the cars on the bridge in Modern Warfare 2 which are very obviously Crown Victorias but without the blue Ford logo or "Crown Victoria" badge on the back. Evidently the game manufacturer had no permission to use the registered trade mark, but the fundamental design is very obviously a Ford in the same manner that a Youtube video of our game can only be from the game.

Now, I'm not positive about this without rechecking... but if my memory serves me correctly, most car designs are not copyright protected.
The specific plans may be protected by copyright, but I don't think the actual shape and/or design aesthetically can be protected by copyright.
You're right in that the name "Ford" and the blue oval are registered trademarks and would require permission, as is the name "Crown Victoria".
I'd suggest there is a mix of different intellectual property concepts which must be considered here.

Can there be a fair use of one and not of another, certainly.

Manic Moran

Sabre0001 wrote: »

The main problem with the bill is that (let's stick to the US), it is no longer the actual copyright holder that has to monitor and issue warnings / complaints. It becomes a federal matter and YouTube (and other hosting sites) are likely to take less risk because they could be faced with a shut down order. In addition, Americans get penalised more heavily - a felony makes it harder for them to get work and strips them of certain perks (Sorry the details are scarce, but it was of less relevance so it hasn't stuck with me! )

This still makes no sense. You say the current status is still a criminal act punishable as a misdemeanour. The actual copyright holder has no authority to prosecute even a misdemeanour transgression, that right remains with the State. If the State has it in mind to go after such malfeasers, then they don't need the game company to make the complaint first, and they wouldn't after the legislation either. And I doubt you will ever find a corporate lawyer who will say "Ah, go on, it's only a misdemeanour, you won't get into much trouble."

That may be your position, but it is not clearly so under current laws. Effectively, every motion that can be carried out has to be created by your graphics department. The player is not creating any new or original content other than movements pre-determined by the creative team.

I think the operative is 'clearly.' There appears to be little definitive one way or the other. Now, granted, companies have started issuing generic licenses to make videos as you suggest, but that could just have been to reassure people that they could go ahead and make them.

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/964/965/341457/ is an interesting example: Goes back 20 years now, but many of the fundamental principles of fair use you mention still apply: It is not replacing any part of the game, it is certainly not interfering with the game's market, and it is (usually) not being done for commercial benefit.

As has been pointed out, the game companies have not had a reason to bring the issue to court. Thus far, neither has the government, though both theoretically could if they wanted to. All we have is the unproven theory, it seems.

NTM

karma_

Manic Moran wrote: »

This still makes no sense. You say the current status is still a criminal act punishable as a misdemeanour. The actual copyright holder has no authority to prosecute even a misdemeanour transgression, that right remains with the State. If the State has it in mind to go after such malfeasers, then they don't need the game company to make the complaint first, and they wouldn't after the legislation either. And I doubt you will ever find a corporate lawyer who will say "Ah, go on, it's only a misdemeanour, you won't get into much trouble."



I think the operative is 'clearly.' There appears to be little definitive one way or the other. Now, granted, companies have started issuing generic licenses to make videos as you suggest, but that could just have been to reassure people that they could go ahead and make them.

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/964/965/341457/ is an interesting example: Goes back 20 years now, but many of the fundamental principles of fair use you mention still apply: It is not replacing any part of the game, it is certainly not interfering with the game's market, and it is (usually) not being done for commercial benefit.

As has been pointed out, the game companies have not had a reason to bring the issue to court. Thus far, neither has the government, though both theoretically could if they wanted to. All we have is the unproven theory, it seems.

NTM

Just about everyone in the know has come out publicly and said this is bad legislation, yet here you are defending it.

Stanford Laws view of it -

http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/dont-break-internet

Manic Moran

I'm not defending it. I'm attacking the manner in which I'm being told to condemn it. I don't care if the Lord Most Holy Himself comes down from On High with his Chorus of Angels, if he doesn't tell me why something is a bad thing, I'm going to question the position and he'll have to convince me.

Only one post thus far has bothered to quote any of the legislation, one portion of one line, or its practical effect, and that with a question mark. If you're going to convince me that a piece of legislation is bad, surely referencing the legislation itself and leading to conclusions about its application is pretty much a mandatory part of the process, no? Especially on a website like this where things can get exaggerated, so you can understand my cynicism.

The SLR link you provide is no better in itself. I doubt the authors would consider a work of that legal weight as a submission to a county court let alone to speak on national legislation. From there, I linked to the discussions on the various sites, on Volokh (where one of the SLR authors hangs out), one of the respondants posted "I was hoping to get some information about SOPA, but that paper seemed heavy on the histrionics." Finally, some other user on there posted a link to a paper which actually explains some of the concerns with relation to the PROTECT-IP act. http://domainincite.com/docs/PROTECT-IP-Technical-Whitepaper-Final.pdf

Egads! An on-topic article which actually explains what the effect of the legislation is and puts forward argument as to why it's a bad thing. Shocker! I can now understand the concerns and would want to be sure they were addressed before I could throw my support behind such legislation.

The catch is that I had to find a link from a site which I had to find a link for from the link to the site you presented. I like to think I'm a fairly dilligent sort of person, that I'm willing to take more effort to research something than many people. But if you think I (or anyone else) am always going to take an argument of "Because he says so" without looking deeper, you are mistaken.

NTM

karma_

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'm not defending it. I'm attacking the manner in which I'm being told to condemn it. I don't care if the Lord Most Holy Himself comes down from On High with his Chorus of Angels, if he doesn't tell me why something is a bad thing, I'm going to question the position and he'll have to convince me.

Only one post thus far has bothered to quote any of the legislation, one portion of one line, or its practical effect, and that with a question mark. If you're going to convince me that a piece of legislation is bad, surely referencing the legislation itself and leading to conclusions about its application is pretty much a mandatory part of the process, no? Especially on a website like this where things can get exaggerated, so you can understand my cynicism.

The SLR link you provide is no better in itself. I doubt the authors would consider a work of that legal weight as a submission to a county court let alone to speak on national legislation. From there, I linked to the discussions on the various sites, on Volokh (where one of the SLR authors hangs out), one of the respondants posted "I was hoping to get some information about SOPA, but that paper seemed heavy on the histrionics." Finally, some other user on there posted a link to a paper which actually explains some of the concerns with relation to the PROTECT-IP act. http://domainincite.com/docs/PROTECT-IP-Technical-Whitepaper-Final.pdf

Egads! An on-topic article which actually explains what the effect of the legislation is and puts forward argument as to why it's a bad thing. Shocker! I can now understand the concerns and would want to be sure they were addressed before I could throw my support behind such legislation.

The catch is that I had to find a link from a site which I had to find a link for from the link to the site you presented. I like to think I'm a fairly dilligent sort of person, that I'm willing to take more effort to research something than many people. But if you think I (or anyone else) am always going to take an argument of "Because he says so" without looking deeper, you are mistaken.

NTM

At least you got there in the end.

Overheal

RichieC wrote: »

Did anyone see the pro SOPA ad?
such a base appeal to emotion it would make you sick "they're stealing american jobs"

I would oppose such legislation based on that alone.

we'll see what jobs are being stolen when isps and the like start fleeing rhese draconian measures

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6pCnk5KxuU

Thats the one I assume you mean. The one that made me stop ignoring this issue like it was nothing and make me think "Wow this is how they think they need to sell this to people?" and start this mother ****ing thread.

You can't find a clean video of it (yet). Perhaps they are pulling any attempts due to copyright infringement?

Theres an article flying around called SOPA for dummies but the material is mostly lacking citation and Godwin's itself (http://thenextweb.com/lifehacks/2011/12/21/confused-by-the-stop-online-piracy-act-heres-sopa-for-dummies/). One important point it makes is about the function of the bill, which is designed to shut down the DNS - domain name system, of an offender website, as well as HTTP protocol. For instance,

-Go to your Run prompt in windows (under Start Menu)
-launch cmd
-as your command type ping http://boards.ie
-now try typing ping www.boards.ie
-Your pingtest will connect to 89.234.66.107

You can try using this IP as your URL and it will take you to boards.

So basically all the bill is letting the government do is restrict the DNS - which is a handy tool, but doesn't make it impossible for users to navigate to an offending website. The bill doesn't target IP Adresses and importantly it does nothing to block Bittorent protocol, only HTTP protocol. Meaning, the majority of piracy (Bittorent swarms) go untouched by this bill.

And I do recall that it was earlier this year or the year last that one of either Wikileaks or Thepiratebay had it's DNS pulled at one point. Guess what? The site still ran, you just had to connect to it from an established IP for the duration of that little episode. Effectively accomplishing nothing.

Now for the bill. Sorry Nathan, I work retail, and it's the holidays, and I file Politics to the wayside when its this bat**** insane. But I'm getting to it this morning, my first day off in many that I am either not called into work, away from the web because Im hostage at a car shop, or projectile vomiting. I didn't mean to leave you hanging.

Immediately I note in the definitions this dubious little ****er:

(9) INCLUDING.—The term ‘‘including’’ means
22 including, but not limited to.

Maybe thats standard DC faire but it means anyone reading the body of the bill might be more inclined to think the language of the bill is less broad than it actually is.

And let's see here, so far based on what I already said above, most of the measures I read basically only apply to Domain Name resolutions and - hypertext links.

(B) INTERNET SEARCH ENGINES.—A pro18
vider of an Internet search engine shall take
technically feasible and reasonable measures, as
expeditiously as possible, but in any case within
5 days after being served with a copy of the
order, or within such time as the court may
order, designed to prevent the foreign infringing
site that is subject to the order, or a portion of

Meaning - if google so choosed - they could simply stop providing search results as hyperlinks, and basically just post search results in plain text, most likely by simply displaying the plain IP address of a website. Similarly an ISP (service providers like Time Warner, Comcast, AT&T) only may be ordered by the Attorney General to stop their domain name system from allowing their customers to resolve DNS names (like boards.ie) to their assigned IP addresses. There is no measure to force ISPs to block the actual IP Address. Also included is language which suggests the AG or the AG's office must be the one to issue such orders to shut down that DNS filtering (by Email and Snail Mail) and the offending service has 5 days to comply from the date of receipt.

Or, not so fast. Paragraph (D) basically deconstructs this theory:

(D) DEFINITION.—For purposes of this
paragraph, a product or service designed or
marketed for the circumvention or bypassing of
measures described in paragraph (2) and taken
in response to a court order issued pursuant to
this subsection includes a product or service
that is designed or marketed to enable a do18
main name described in such an order—
(i) to resolve to that domain name’s
Internet protocol address notwithstanding
the measures taken by a service provider
under paragraph (2) to prevent such reso23
lution; or
(ii) to resolve to a different domain
name or Internet Protocol address that the provider of the product or service knows,
reasonably should know, or reasonably be3
lieves is used by an Internet site offering
substantially similar infringing activities as
those with which the infringing foreign
site, or portion thereof, subject to a court
order under this section was associated.

Which if I'm reading that correctly means basically, google gets a court order, changes from DNS listing to IP listings, they'd still be in violation. So either it's dumbed down to DNS or it's not and it encompasses IPs as well. Either way, it does nothing to tack bittorent. The bill seems mostly designed to attack physical piracy, like buying cheaper generic prescriptions and such.


It's a pretty thick read, but Section 102 seems to be the bulk of where the issue lies. I havent even gotten to the streaming video bit.

The catch is that I had to find a link from a site which I had to find a link for from the link to the site you presented.

Sabre0001

Reddit has said it will shut down if SOPA gets passed...thus spelling the end of You Laugh You Lose!

http://www.siliconrepublic.com/new-media/item/25127-if-sopa-is-passed-reddit/

RichieC

just read in twitter that godaddy have issued a press statment dropping their support for SOPA.

karma_

RichieC wrote: »

just read in twitter that godaddy have issued a press statment dropping their support for SOPA.

Not surprising given the boycott that was being organised, via Reddit et al.

They moved fast though as only earlier that had reaffirmed their support.

fitz0

Overheal wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6pCnk5KxuU

I'm surprised they didn't make the flag turn all red. Perhaps too much like McCarthyism for the internet age.

RichieC

Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft are pretending to pull their support for SOPA.

They are though, members of the ESA who do still support it.

I suppose their PR departments are hoping us plebs don't know the difference between not supporting something and actively opposing something..

:rolleyes:

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2011/12/31/nintendo-sony-and-microsoft-pull-back-on-supporting-sopa.aspx

RichieC

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g91t4O_q8kk

Liberal media :rolleyes:

VinLieger

Good news the DNS blocking part of the bill has been removed causing the whole thing to be postponed to properly assess how the rest of the bill will impact the internet.
Id say this is all mainly due to the white house finally coming out and saying it didnt support the DNS blocking or any restrictions on freedom of speech

KerranJast

VinLieger wrote: »

Good news the DNS blocking part of the bill has been removed causing the whole thing to be postponed to properly assess how the rest of the bill will impact the internet.
Id say this is all mainly due to the white house finally coming out and saying it didnt support the DNS blocking or any restrictions on freedom of speech

A major campaign on the part of Paul Ryan's constituents also forced him to withdraw his support for SOPA/Protect IP.

matthew8

KerranJast wrote: »

A major campaign on the part of Paul Ryan's constituents also forced him to withdraw his support for SOPA/Protect IP.

Really? Paul Ryan? That's great, a leading conservative congressman.

Killer Pigeon

SOPA: US imperialism have reached the internet!!

Doctor DooM

Black out seems to be going well.

Will be interesting to see how PIPA performs next week.

me-skywalker

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Black out seems to be going well.

Will be interesting to see how PIPA performs next week.

Agree. I now have people around me discussing these bills who had never heard of them before until they clicked onto google this morning! Awareness has peaked right now they need to hammer home the point.

Doctor DooM

me-skywalker wrote: »

Agree. I now have people around me discussing these bills who had never heard of them before until they clicked onto google this morning! Awareness has peaked right now they need to hammer home the point.

It's interesting, it's hard not to see it as a battle between new and old media (although I certainly don't see it as a war between Hollywood and Silicon Valley as some places are reporting it, that's way too simple). It'll also be interesting to see if new media is able to now mobilise enough people to have an effect. These new people you're talking about are some of the people who use new media without caring about the "under the bonnet" side of it, I'd guess.

Matt Holck

I miss people putting video to music. I'm a bit concerned mixed media would suffer as a result of this censorship.

The thought that websites can be blocked by internet service providers does not settle well with me.

http://occupywallst.org/ OccupyWallStreet Is on strike to protest SOPA


unfortunately

this shut down all other topics discussed there

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGM8PT1eAvY

Imagine a World
Without Free Knowledge

For over a decade, we have spent millions of hours building the largest encyclopedia in human history. Right now, the U.S. Congress is considering legislation that could fatally damage the free and open Internet. For 24 hours, to raise awareness, we are blacking out Wikipedia. Learn more.

Contact your representatives.

Overheal

Matt Holck wrote: »

I miss people putting video to music.

Still happens. Just nobody watches it on MTV anymore:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7ArUgxtlJs

nitromaster

Question: Someone told me, if this passes, all copyrighted material will be taken down from youtube.
I presumed on a theoretical basis that youtube copyright would continue as before, with companies having to claim copyright over their content and being able to choose whether to block it or not, with many being okay with it being available on "unofficial videos"

Is this not right?

frozenfrozen

Youtube would allow for piracy, therefore the whole website would be blocked AFAIK

Doctor DooM

Youtube would probably have to cease to exist in it's current form as they would be responsible if anyone uploaded any copyrighted material. They would lose their current safe harbour status under DMCA.