SOPA aka lol you have copyright material or i think you do now die!

[Ashkin Una]

From what I have heard about the bills, the way they would block the sites would be by dns blocking them.

And since there are so many ways to get around DNS blocks (like using the IP address of the site instead of its name), it probably wouldn't harm the pirates but everyday users.

Kinda like bad DRM. So, yeah if they are only going to use DNS blocking methods....the bill is an absolute waste of congressmen time.

[dr. pepper]

From what I have heard about the bills, the way they would block the sites would be by dns blocking them.

And since there are so many ways to get around DNS blocks (like using the IP address of the site instead of its name), it probably wouldn't harm the pirates but everyday users.

Kinda like bad DRM. So, yeah if they are only going to use DNS blocking methods....the bill is an absolute waste of congressmen time.

I like this criticism more because it's true.

[Meh]

Did anyone actually do any research other than watching a British guy rant about our legislative system? We already know how terrible it is, thank you.

The corporations themselves do not go after these sites. The Justice Department would have to take it to court and present a case against the site. The case would have to prove that the site's primary purpose is to enable piracy. What part of that is without notice and without reason?

Also, the vote is tomorrow. It hasn't been turned down yet.

I certainly don't support it, but it's not as stupid as it's made out to be.

Okay, another edit. YouTube will not be taken down, because its primary purpose is not to enable piracy. I haven't heard this much exaggeration since the Ishihara scare. Independent labels will still be able to advertise their content, there will still be Let's Play, and there will still be reviews. Jesus Christ.

SOPA affects ALL copyrighted material, that includes videogame footage and movie trailers
And the bill allows the government to SHUT DOWN the host site, youtube is no exception

Okay, present the case against YouTube. Is its primary purpose to be a medium for pirates? No. So it won't be banned. It's that simple. ThePirateBay is at risk, because it was made for this. As for MegaUpload, who's downloaded legal stuff off of that site? I'm a pirate, but I'm not going to call a kettle white.

I don't think you understand the bill, IT DOESN'T MATTER if it was intended for pirating or not, if it's copyrighted material, they have a right to shut down the site
You can't go "Oh but he never meant for anybody to pirate that CoD after seeing that killstreak footage" because the corporations don't work that way
They WILL go "He is showing footage of our product, take the site down", honestly, you are too trusting in the big corporations
This bill WILL have a huge impact on the internet, you can deny it all you want, but that fact still remains

[Torugu]

*snip*

Not convincing at all. I've signed at least 3 petitions against US Internet censorship laws before SOPA came up - none of them caused anything like the stir surrounding SOPA. And I severely doubt that Google, Twitter and Facebook are afraid of having to pay for their video games...

No, if you want to convince me you'll have to provide more than circumstantial evidence. At the very least it should be easy to provide me with the source that made you take your position in the first place.


Oh and Meh, please refrain from making unsupported claims. I assume that - like myself - you have only third party information about SOPA's actual contents and since pepper has probably already read about most of that elsewhere, I doubt screaming "facts" in his face is very convincing.

[GBolt]

Have you guys even checked the page of the video?

[dr. pepper]

I will walk everyone through this bill.

I'll skip ahead to the parts that are being disputed in this thread.

There's a section right after this one which is almost exactly the same for U.S. sites. Also, let me iterate that the Attorney General works for the judicial branch of the U.S. government. The Attorney General is neither (a) corporation(s) or working for them.

SEC. 102 ACTION BY ATTORNEY GENERAL TO PROTECT U.S. CUSTOMERS AND PREVENT U.S. SUPPORT OF FOREIGN INFRINGING SITES.
(a) Definition.--For purposes of this section, a foreign Internet site or portion thereof is a "foreign infringing site" if--
(1) the Internet site or portion thereof is a U.S.-directed site and is used by users in the United States;
(2) the owner or operator of such Internet site is committing or facilitating the commission of criminal violations punishable under section 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2319B, or 2320, or chapter 90, of title 18, United States Code; and
(3) the Internet site would, by reason of acts described in paragraph (1), be subject to seizure in the United States in an action brought by the Attorney General if such site were a domestic Internet site.

The sites in this section are directed toward U.S. citizens and used by the same; would be in violation of U.S. law pertaining to committing or facilitating counterfeiting, breaking copyright law, illegally trafficking music, movies and counterfeit goods or services, or putting trade secrets at risk; and would be subject to seizure if situated in the U.S.

Porn will still be allowed. I laughed my ass off when someone said that there wouldn't be any more porn.

(b) Action by the Attorney  General.--
(1) In personam.--The Attorney General may commence an in personam action against--
(A) a registrant of a domain name used by a foreign infringing site; or
(B) an owner or operator of a foreign infringing site.

The Attorney General may take actions against individuals whose website is registered under the same name of a foreign infringing site or own and operate a foreign infringing site.

(2) In rem.--If through due diligence the Attorney General is unable to find a person described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1), or  no such person found has an address within a judicial district of the United States, the Attorney General may commence an in rem action against a foreign infringing site or the foreign domain name used by such site.

If the Attorney General cannot find the individuals matching the above paragraph, the Attorney General may take actions against the site itself.

(3) Notice.--Upon commencing an action under this subsection, the Attorney General shall send a notice of the alleged violation and intent to proceed under this section--
(A) to the registrant of the domain name of the Internet site--
(i) at the postal and electronic mail addresses appearing in the applicable publicly accessible database of registrations, if any, and to the extent such addresses are reasonably available; and
(ii) via the postal and electronic mail addresses of the registrar, registry, or other domain name registration authority that registered or assigned the domain name of the Internet site, to the extent such addresses are reasonably available; or
(B) to the owner or operator of the Internet site--
(i) at the primary postal and electronic mail addresses for such owner or operator that is provided on the Internet site, if any, and to the extent such addresses are reasonably available; or
(ii) if there is no domain name of the Internet site, via the postal and electronic mail addresses of the Internet Protocal allocation entity appearing in the applicable publicly accessible database of allocations and assignments, if any, and to the extent such addresses are reasonably available; or
(C) in any other such form as the court may provide, including as may be required by rule 4(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Attorney General will give notice to these individuals informing them of the accusation and the intent to try them in a court of law in any way possible.

(4) Service of process.--For purposes of this section, the actions described in this subsection shall constitute service of process.

This is how the justice system will deal with these individuals:

(5) Relief.--On application of the Attorney general following the commencement of an action under this section, the court may issue a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, or an injunction, in accordance with rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, against a registrant of a domain name used by the foreign infringing site or an owner or operator of the foreign infringing site or, in an action brought in rem under paragraph (2), against the foreign infringing site or a portion of such site, or the domain name used by such site, to cease and desist from undertaking any further activity as a foreign infringing site.

The court may issue a temporary restraining order, or order the individuals or site to cease and desist from doing the illegal activity.

(c) Actions Based on Court Orders.--
(1) Service.--A process server on behalf of the Attorney General, with prior approval of the court, may serve a copy of a court order issued pursuant to this section on similarly situated entities within each class described in paragraph (2). Proof of service shall be filed with the court.

Due legal process bullshit.

(2)  Reasonable measures.--After being served with a copy of an order pursuant to this subsection, the following shall apply:
(A) Service providers.--
(i) In general.--A service provider shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures designed to prevent access by its subscribers located within the United States to the foreign infringing site (or portion thereof) that is subject to the order, including measures designed to prevent the domain name of the foreign infringing site (or portion thereof) from resolving to that domain name's Internet Protocal address. Such actions shall be taken 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.

The court will order service providers to prevent access by its subscribers to the rogue site by all means within reason, which includes domain and IP blocking, as quickly as possible within 5 days or whatever time frame given by the court.

(ii) Limitations.--A service provider shall not be required--
(I) other than as directed under this subparagraph, to modify its network, software, systems, or facilities;
(II) to take any measures with respect to domain name resolutions not performed by its own domain name server; or
(III) to continue to prevent access to a domain name to which access has been effectively disabled by other means.

The service providers will only have to block its subscribers from accessing the rogue site, and only for so long as necessary.

(iii) Construction.--Nothing in this subparagraph shall affect the limitation on the liability of a service provider under section 512 of title 17, United States Code.

The service providers will not be held responsible for anything.

(iv) Text of notice.--The Attorney General shall prescribe the text of any notice displayed to users or customers of a service provider taking actions pursuant to this subparagraph. Such text shall state that an action is being taken pursuant to a court order obtained by the Attorney General.

The Attorney General will inform the subscribers of what is going on.

(B) Internet search engines.--A provider 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 such site specified in the order, from being served as a direct hypertext link.

Search engines will be asked the same thing as service providers at the same speed.

(C) Payment network providers.--
(i) Preventing affiliation.--A payment network provider 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, prohibit, or suspend its service from completing payment transactions involving customers located within the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and the payment account--
(I) which is used by the foreign infringing site, or portion thereof, that is subject to the order; and
(II) through which the payment network provider would complete such payment transactions.

Payment network providers will also block transactions by any means within reason, or temporarily block transactions involving the rogue site and U.S. accounts.

(ii) No duty to monitor.--A payment network provider shall be considered to be in compliance with clause (i) if it takes action described in that clause with respect to accounts it has as of the date on which a copy of the order is served, or as of the date on which the order is amended under subsection (e).

Once that is done, payment network providers will not be held responsible for whatever happens.

(D) Internet advertising services.--
(i) Required actions.--An Internet advertising service that contracts to provide advertising to or for the foreign infringing site, or portion thereof, that is subject to the order, or that knowingly serves advertising to or for such site or such portion thereof, 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--
(I) prevent its service from providing advertisements to or relating to the foreign infringing site that is subject to the order or a portion of such site specified in the order;
(II) cease making available advertisements for the foreign infringing site or such portion thereof, or paid or sponsored search results, links, or other placements that provide access to such foreign infring site or such portion thereof; and
(III) cease providing or receiving any compensation for advertising or related services to, from, or in connection with such foreign infringing site or such portion thereof.

Advertisers that know they are servicing the rogue site must drop service with the site, stop making the advertisements available, and stop receiving payment for the advertisement.

(ii) No duty to monitor.--An internet advertising service shall be considered to be in compliance with clause (i) if it takes action described in that clause with respect to accounts it has as of the dat on which a copy of the order is served, or as of the date on which the order is amended under subsection (e).

They will not be held responsible if someone hacks into their service and releases the advertisements or something. Same as before.

The rest of this section details how these groups can defend themselves in court if they are accused of not doing enough under the bill. It then goes into how to end the censorship.

[dr. pepper]

To clear up what can be considered copyright works, and reassure you all that anything you think is legal to do will be fine:

TITLE II--ADDITIONAL ENHANCEMENTS TO COMBAT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY THEFT
SEC. 201. STREAMING OF COPYRIGHTED WORKS IN VIOLATION OF CRIMINAL LAW.
(a) Title 17 Amendments.--Section 506(a) of title 17, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

The copyright law will be changed in these ways:

"(a) Criminal Infringement.--
"(1) In general.--Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed--
"(A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;
"(B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, or by the public performance by means of digital transmission, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copyrighted works, when the total retail value of the copies or phonorecords, or of the public performances, is more than $1,000; or
"(C) by the distribution or public performance of a work being prepared for commercial dissemination, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial dissemination.

Individuals will be punished per copyright law if making a public performance of copyrighted works, including through digital transmission, when such performances are either worth in total more than a thousand dollars, or done for commercial gain with full knowledge, or even simple commonsense, that what is being performed is intended to be sold, but has not yet reached market.

"(2) Evidence.--For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction, distribution, or public performance of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement of a copyright.

Evidence of such public performances happening is not enough to establish copyright law was broken on purpose.

"(3) Definition.--In this subsection, the term 'work being prepared for commercial dissemination' means--
"(A) a computer program, a musical work, a motion picture or audiovisual work, or a sound recording, if, at the time of unauthorized distribution or public performance--
"(i)(I) the copyright owner has a reasonable expectation of commercial distribution; and
"(II) the copies or phonorecords of the work have not been commercially distributed in the United States by or with the authorization of the copyright owner; or
"(ii)(I) the copyright owner does not intend to offer copies of the work for commercial distribution but has a reasonable expectation of other forms of commercial dissemination of the work; and
"(II) the work has not been commercially disseminated to the public in the United States by or with the authorization of the copyright owner;

To clarify what is copyright infringement when unauthorized public performances are worth less than a thousand dollars, for such cases the copyright owner expects to publish the performed work for money and has not yet done so, or the copyright owner expects to profit off the performed work in some way and has not yet done so.

"(B) a motion picture, if, at the time of unauthorized distribution or public performance, the motion picture--
"(i)(I) has been made available for viewing in a motion picture exhibition facility; and
"(II) has not been made available in copies for sale to the general public in the United States by or with the authorization of the copyright owner in a format intended to permit viewing outside a motion pictuer exhibition facility; or
"(ii) had not been commercially disseminated to the public in the United States by or with the authorization of the copyright owner more than 24 hours before the unauthorized distribution or public performance.".

For movies, however, unauthorized public performances are copyright infringement if it is currently being aired in theaters and has not been made available for sale for use outside of those establishments, or the owner has not yet released the movie or the performance was made within the day of the release.

(b) Title 18 Amendments.--Section 2319 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

Criminal punishment for these offenses is changed in these ways:

(1) in subsection (b)(1), by striking "during any 180-day period" and all that follows and insert "of at least 10 copies or phonorecords, or of at least 10 public performances by means of digital transmission, of 1 or more copyrighted works, during any 180-day period, which have a total retail value of more than $2,500;"

When the copyright infringement is committed for personal commercial gain, offenders cannot be imprisoned for longer than five years to pirate works worth in total greater than $2,500, including through digital means.

(2) in subsection (c)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking "of 10 or more copies or phonorecords" and all that follows and inserting "including by electronic means, of at least 10 copies or phonorecords, or of at least 10 copies or phonorecords, or of at least 10 public performances by means of digital transmission, of 1 or more copyrighted works, during any 180-day period, which have a total retail value of more than $2,500;"; and
(B) in paragraph (3), by striking "if the offense" and all that follows and inserting "in any other case;";

When the copyright infringement is committed by public performance, including through digital and electronic means, offenders cannot be imprisoned for longer than three years if the copyrighted work is worth more than $2,500. If the worth in total is less than $2,500, offenders cannot be imprisoned for longer than a year.

(3) in subsection (d)(4), by striking "under paragraph (2)" and inserting "committed for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain under subsection (a)";

If a felony was committed in the process of breaking copyright law for personal commercial gain, offenders cannot be imprisoned for longer than ten years and/or fined accordingly.
 

(4) in subsection (f)--
(A) by amending paragraph (2) to read as follows:
"(2) the terms 'reproduction', 'distribution', and 'public performance' refer to the exclusive rights of a copyright owner under paragraphs (1), (3), (4), and (6), respectively, of section 106 (relating to exclusive rights in copyrighted works), as limited by sections 107 through 122, of title 17; and".

"Public performance" refers to the exclusive rights of a copyright owner to perform copyrighted works publicly, including through digital transmission.

(B) in paragraph (3), by striking "; and" and inserting a period; and
(C) by striking paragraph (4); and
(5) by adding at the end the following new subsection:.
"(g) Evidence of Total Retail Value.--For purposes of this section and section 506(a) of title 17, total retail value may be shown by evidence of--
"(1) the total retail price that persons receiving the reproductions, distributions, or public performances constituting the offense would have paid to receive such reproductions, distributions, or public performances lawfully;
"(2) the total economic value of the reproductions, distributions, or public performances to the infringer or to the copyright owner, as shown by evidence of fee, advertising, or other revenue that was received by the person who commits the offense, or that the copyright owner would have been entitled to receive had such reproductions, distributions, or public performances been offered lawfully; or
"(3) the total fair market value of licenses to offer the type of reproductions, distributions or public performances constituting the offense.".

A copyrighted work's worth is determined by how much it costs to acquire the legal version, the illegal revenue generated by the offender or the losses incurred by the copyright owner, or the market value.

(c) Rule of Construction.--Any person acting with a good faith reasonable basis in law to believe that the person's conduct is lawful shall not be considered to have acted willfully for purposes of the amendments made by this section. Such person includes, but is not limited to, a person engaged in conduct forming the basis of a bona fide commercial dispute over the scope of existence of a contract or license governing such conduct where such person has a reasonable basis in law to believe that such conduct is noninfringing. Nothing in this subsection shall affect the application or interpretation of the willfulness requirement in any other provision of civil or criminal law.

Offenders that have a reasonable dispute with the extent of a copyright owner's rights and acted in belief that what they were doing was legal will not be considered to have broken copyright law on purpose.


Therefore, YouTube will be fine.

[Torugu]

Thanks that was the sort of response I was looking for. I'm afraid I still have to disagree with you though.

First of all, obviously YouTube won't be shut down*. I don't think there is any reasonable person claiming that. The point is: It could be shut down in theory. There is no doubt that there is copyrighted material on YouTube and while it is true that it would be possible for the attorney general to block access only to those parts of the site where the infringing video/whatever is located this is not guaranteed in way. So yes, if the attorney wants to he could shut down YouTube. Of course that won't really happen - partly because of the obvious public outcry that would cause, partly because Google's lawyers will do everything to prevent that - but it could still mean a lot of trouble.

So what will YouTube do if SOPA passes? They will engage in self-censorship, likely in cooperation with the businesses that are now pushing SOPA. Incidentally that is not a hypothetical scenario: If you watched TB's WTF is on the topic you'll have heard that they already have agreed to take down whatever content is deemed offensive by certain parties. Even worse, here in Germany youtube blocks access to a large number of videos that may by licensed by GEMA (the German " Society for musical performing and mechanical reproduction rights") to prevent trouble with the German laws on the matter**. Incidentally I can guarantee you that many of the blocked videos do not contain any GEMA content whatsoever.

Additionally there are some very disturbing implications in the part about copyright infringement as well, shout casters for example often have music running in the background to help them concentrate. This would fall under the common sense definition of fair use (Who is going to listen to music when that forces you to have a middle aged guy scream "VOIDRAYS" and "BANELINGS" into your ear at the same time?) but it almost certainly doesn't fall under the legal definition thereof. And of course these guys are operating commercially, it's their job after all.

Bottom line is while there may be some slightly exaggerated accounts floating around, I see the panic as very much justified. And the future of the Internet as we know it is very much at risk.
 


*Just to prevent any confusion: I'm using "shut down" in the sense of "access blocked for the American public, no income-generating business with any US based company (no adds, no paypal) and no links from US based search engines".

**Sadly Germany never had safe harbour laws the way the US does, though unlike SOPA those German liability laws do not apply to companies outside Germany.

[GBolt]

Porn will still be allowed. I laughed my ass off when someone said that there wouldn't be any more porn.

Most of the porn on the internet is copyrighted. It's just so widespread that everybody forgot about that. Besides, even the Industry doesn't care much, they consider it as free advertisement. But they don't have to be the ones to contend. So yeah, whatever. Only puritan moms would want anything with "Operation Porn Takedown", but their not-so-puritan husbands would sabotage them anyway. So this isn't really a concern. It's not like I fap or anything, anyway.
>.>
<.<
>.>

Therefore, YouTube will be fine.

So what will YouTube do if SOPA passes? They will engage in self-censorship, likely in cooperation with the businesses that are now pushing SOPA.

This.

Even worse, here in Germany youtube blocks access to a large number of videos that may by licensed by GEMA (the German " Society for musical performing and mechanical reproduction rights") to prevent trouble with the German laws on the matter**. Incidentally I can guarantee you that many of the blocked videos do not contain any GEMA content whatsoever.

That's unfortunate, but Germany has been in deep shit for as far as I recall. Germany and Australia. And to think Australia has such great minds. And Germany has... interesting stuff.

[Xamdiz]

This should be in the general discussion or somebody is going to spam this thread. Not really spam as much as a derail with random topics, eh.

For example, suddenly image thread!

[GBolt]

But it's still an image regarding the topic. And yeah. I guess Germany and Australia are some kind of Paradise to Chinese people.

[dr. pepper]

Thanks that was the sort of response I was looking for. I'm afraid I still have to disagree with you though.

First of all, obviously YouTube won't be shut down*. I don't think there is any reasonable person claiming that. The point is: It could be shut down in theory. There is no doubt that there is copyrighted material on YouTube and while it is true that it would be possible for the attorney general to block access only to those parts of the site where the infringing video/whatever is located this is not guaranteed in way. So yes, if the attorney wants to he could shut down YouTube. Of course that won't really happen - partly because of the obvious public outcry that would cause, partly because Google's lawyers will do everything to prevent that - but it could still mean a lot of trouble.

So what will YouTube do if SOPA passes? They will engage in self-censorship, likely in cooperation with the businesses that are now pushing SOPA. Incidentally that is not a hypothetical scenario: If you watched TB's WTF is on the topic you'll have heard that they already have agreed to take down whatever content is deemed offensive by certain parties. Even worse, here in Germany youtube blocks access to a large number of videos that may by licensed by GEMA (the German " Society for musical performing and mechanical reproduction rights") to prevent trouble with the German laws on the matter**. Incidentally I can guarantee you that many of the blocked videos do not contain any GEMA content whatsoever.

Additionally there are some very disturbing implications in the part about copyright infringement as well, shout casters for example often have music running in the background to help them concentrate. This would fall under the common sense definition of fair use (Who is going to listen to music when that forces you to have a middle aged guy scream "VOIDRAYS" and "BANELINGS" into your ear at the same time?) but it almost certainly doesn't fall under the legal definition thereof. And of course these guys are operating commercially, it's their job after all.

Bottom line is while there may be some slightly exaggerated accounts floating around, I see the panic as very much justified. And the future of the Internet as we know it is very much at risk.
 


*Just to prevent any confusion: I'm using "shut down" in the sense of "access blocked for the American public, no income-generating business with any US based company (no adds, no paypal) and no links from US based search engines".

**Sadly Germany never had safe harbour laws the way the US does, though unlike SOPA those German liability laws do not apply to companies outside Germany.

Exactly. Google's doing that right now; nothing changes. And they can do whatever they want to do. The Internet is not publicly owned, and YouTube does not belong to anyone but Google. Just like how a newspaper would edit things out, Google will edit things out as well. I still don't see the problem. That would have nothing to do with the government and everything to do with money.

As for the copyright infringement, it doesn't become a problem until the corporations judge it to be, and I don't think they will.

[Puppy]

I used to read SOPA as SOAP.

It sounded weird but then I realized.