OSDev.org

Love4Boobies wrote:

Rusky wrote:SOPA's problems are not just technical- all it takes is a "good faith" request from ANY party and a website can be cut off with no process whatsoever, including an investigation into the legitimacy of the claim.

That's not true at all. In fact, websites are even notified and given the chance to explain whether their content is indeed a violation or not.

Ugh. That is false- as the Tom's Hardware article explained it, SOPA "would deny site owners due process of law, by initiating a DNS blacklisting based solely on a good faith assertion by an individual copyright or intellectual property owner." Websites may be notified and given a chance to explain, but not until after they've been blacklisted. In any case, the government should not have DNS blacklisting capabilities no matter what the target is.

Love4Boobies wrote:My reasoning behind supporting copyright, DRM, and proprietary software is the following: Authors should be free to put whatever restrictions they want on their work given the fact that they don't force anyone to use it. Complaining is like saying "I want SomeWork but I want the authors to distribute it using the terms I want." Well, that's just silly and morally wrong.

SOPA's supporters use these kinds of good ideals the way you accuse its opponents of "throwing [the word 'censorship'] about because they hope others will react to their invalid arguments," forming a straw man that its opponents are "silly and morally wrong." This unconstitutional legislation will do nothing to stop piracy- only give the media industries and the government far more power than they should have.

More information:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news ... -worse.ars
http://americancensorship.org/#quotes

A very relevant quote from the first article:

The bill gives government lawyers the power to go to court and obtain an injunction against any foreign website based on a generally single-sided presentation to a judge. Once that happens, Internet providers have 5 days to “prevent access by its subscribers located within the United States to the foreign infringing site.”

SOPA and PIPA don't just have implementation problems. They are massive efforts by dying industries that want the government to protect their outdated business model, and who don't care who else they ruin in the process. There will most definitely be a loss of liberty if they pass.

Love4Boobies wrote:

Rusky wrote:SOPA's problems are not just technical- all it takes is a "good faith" request from ANY party and a website can be cut off with no process whatsoever, including an investigation into the legitimacy of the claim.

That's not true at all. In fact, websites are even notified and given the chance to explain whether their content is indeed a violation or not.

But if they do file a counter notice, they open themselves up to being sued in US courts.

Lets say I'm a UK citizen, running a UK based service on UK based servers, to UK based users. My only association with the US is that I use a US based advertising provider. Now, lets say some company gets uppity and files a notice with my advertising provider that I'm infringing on copyrighted content they own. Wherever there is any truth in their claim or not, I have two choices: I can forfeit all ad revenue, or I can open myself up for a lawsuit in a US court under US laws.

Don't you see how this is absurd? My site may not have any US users or be accessible to US citizens, but the US is still claiming jurisdicion!

Don't you see how this is completely ridiculous? I might not be infringing any laws - but as soon as I respond to that complaint I'm now being judged under two jurisdictions (both US and my home one) and suddenly the game changes. I can be subject to US laws even if I don't operate at all within the US.

This is just the tip of the SOPA iceberg.

And yes, I too agree that people should be able to put whatever restrictions on their work they wish. That doesn't mean I have to support them (I generally oppose most forms of DRM), but people can do as they wish (Of course, what people do with said blob of data once they posess it is their own damn matter) with their own works. However, there is a difference between reasonable restrictions and power grabs - and SOPA is the latter.

Rusky wrote:

Love4Boobies wrote:

Rusky wrote:SOPA's problems are not just technical- all it takes is a "good faith" request from ANY party and a website can be cut off with no process whatsoever, including an investigation into the legitimacy of the claim.

That's not true at all. In fact, websites are even notified and given the chance to explain whether their content is indeed a violation or not.

Ugh. That is false- as the Tom's Hardware article explained it, SOPA "would deny site owners due process of law, by initiating a DNS blacklisting based solely on a good faith assertion by an individual copyright or intellectual property owner." Websites may be notified and given a chance to explain, but not until after they've been blacklisted. In any case, the government should not have DNS blacklisting capabilities no matter what the target is.

I had no idea Tom's Hardware article was the authoritative description of SOPA. Here's a better reference:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:HR03261:@@@D&summ2=m& wrote:Sets forth an additional two-step process that allows an intellectual property right holder harmed by a U.S.-directed site dedicated to infringement, or a site promoted or used for infringement under certain circumstances, to first provide a written notification identifying the site to related payment network providers and Internet advertising services requiring such entities to forward the notification and suspend their services to such an identified site unless the site's owner, operator, or domain name registrant, upon receiving the forwarded notification, provides a counter notification explaining that it is not dedicated to engaging in specified violations.

As you can see, it's not the government which makes the complaint but the copyright owners, if they so wish. Furthermore, the domain is not taken down without first giving the owner of the website containing potentially illegal content the opportunity to explain himself/herself.

Rusky wrote:

Love4Boobies wrote:My reasoning behind supporting copyright, DRM, and proprietary software is the following: Authors should be free to put whatever restrictions they want on their work given the fact that they don't force anyone to use it. Complaining is like saying "I want SomeWork but I want the authors to distribute it using the terms I want." Well, that's just silly and morally wrong.

SOPA's supporters use these kinds of good ideals the way you accuse its opponents of "throwing [the word 'censorship'] about because they hope others will react to their invalid arguments," forming a straw man that its opponents are "silly and morally wrong." This unconstitutional legislation will do nothing to stop piracy- only give the media industries and the government far more power than they should have.

You misunderstand me. Notice this is not a pro-SOPA argument.

Regarding what Owen said about US courts, I'll need to do some research to verify the validity of his claims. Either way, it should be the advertising company who chooses whether to stop offering their services to their clients or wants to go to court in order to keep them.

Love4Boobies wrote:I had no idea Tom's Hardware article was the authoritative description of SOPA.

Never claimed it was, merely that it explained it well.

Love4Boobies wrote:As you can see, it's not the government which makes the complaint but the copyright owners, if they so wish.

Never claimed otherwise.

Love4Boobies wrote:Here's a better reference:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:HR03261:@@@D&summ2=m& wrote:Sets forth an additional two-step process that allows an intellectual property right holder harmed by a U.S.-directed site dedicated to infringement, or a site promoted or used for infringement under certain circumstances, to first provide a written notification identifying the site to related payment network providers and Internet advertising services requiring such entities to forward the notification and suspend their services to such an identified site unless the site's owner, operator, or domain name registrant, upon receiving the forwarded notification, provides a counter notification explaining that it is not dedicated to engaging in specified violations.

... Furthermore, the domain is not taken down without first giving the owner of the website containing potentially illegal content the opportunity to explain himself/herself.

How about everything around that quote- the stuff that's not the "additional" process (as well as what Owen explained in the specific cases where the owner is given a chance to explain):

Authorizes the Attorney General (AG) to seek a court order against a U.S.-directed foreign Internet site committing or facilitating online piracy to require the owner, operator, or domain name registrant, or the site or domain name itself if such persons are unable to be found, to cease and desist further activities constituting specified intellectual property offenses under the federal criminal code including criminal copyright infringement, unauthorized fixation and trafficking of sound recordings or videos of live musical performances, the recording of exhibited motion pictures, or trafficking in counterfeit labels, goods, or services.
...
Requires online service providers, Internet search engines, payment network providers, and Internet advertising services, upon receiving a copy of a court order relating to an AG action, to carry out certain preventative measures including withholding services from an infringing site or preventing users located in the United States from accessing the infringing site. Requires payment network providers and Internet advertising services, upon receiving a copy of such an order relating to a right holder's action, to carry out similar preventative measures.

In addition, how about any changes made since that was posted? I have a hard time believing the EFF, Tom's Hardware, Ars Technica and all the rest of the tech industry are making the exact same thing up.

Love4Boobies wrote:You misunderstand me. Notice this is not a pro-SOPA argument.

Really?

Love4Boobies wrote:Generally speaking, I am a supporter of both SOPA and PIPA

Rusky wrote:How about everything around that quote- the stuff that's not the "additional" process

The surrounding surrounding talks about websites facilitating piracy, not about websites that are suspected of it. I don't know how you can get from here to "Domains can be shut down without further investigation."

Rusky wrote:(as well as what Owen explained in the specific cases where the owner is given a chance to explain)

Owen didn't talk about the specific cases where the owner is given a chance to explain. The owner is always given the chance to explain unless he/she cannot be found, is dead, etc.---pretty much like with any other law.

Love4Boobies wrote:

Rusky wrote:

Love4Boobies wrote:You misunderstand me. Notice this is not a pro-SOPA argument.

Really?

Love4Boobies wrote:Generally speaking, I am a supporter of both SOPA and PIPA

Please try your best to follow the conversation and not take things out of context, esp. when I used quotes and even bold text to indicate precisely what I meant. I gave arguments in favour of SOPA but not the ones you called invalid---all that was in answer to something else. Here, I'll make it easier for you:

Rusky wrote:

Love4Boobies wrote:

Rusky wrote:copyright (which is of debatable usefulness in the first place)

[...]

My reasoning behind supporting copyright, DRM, and proprietary software is the following: Authors should be free to put whatever restrictions they want on their work given the fact that they don't force anyone to use it. Complaining is like saying "I want SomeWork but I want the authors to distribute it using the terms I want." Well, that's just silly and morally wrong.

SOPA's supporters use these kinds of good ideals the way you accuse its opponents of "throwing [the word 'censorship'] about because they hope others will react to their invalid arguments," forming a straw man that its opponents are "silly and morally wrong." This unconstitutional legislation will do nothing to stop piracy- only give the media industries and the government far more power than they should have.

Explain why every explanation of SOPA I've read from anywhere but here and your outdated link contradicts you on whether the site owner gets to explain before the site is blacklisted.

I apologize for misunderstanding the scope of your "this is not a pro-SOPA argument" claim. You do seem to be defending SOPA in general.

Rusky wrote:Explain why every explanation of SOPA I've read from anywhere but here and your outdated link contradicts you on whether the site owner gets to explain before the site is blacklisted.

The link is not outdated; there have been two meetings since, you can look up exactly what was discussed.

Furthermore, check your sources' older claims---they have been constant this whole time, leaving us with two possibilities: (a) SOPA has not changed (can't be, since the media contradicts that link), or (b) it has changed (but since the media's claims were constant, that must mean they can't be trusted).

Public debates that only present the facts get far less attention than those who make outrageous claims. How often is the public really informed? See the effects of THC consumption, homeopathy, religion, etc. for more examples.

Rusky wrote:I apologize for misunderstanding the scope of your "this is not a pro-SOPA argument" claim. You do seem to be defending SOPA in general.

It's fine. Although it made ongoing conversations harder to participate to, Google Wave did make them easier to follow. Forums aren't perfect for following multiple threads of conversation---it's natural for humans to go OT sometimes and forums aren't designed with that in mind.

Well, regardless of whether the site owner is informed before a takedown, can we all agree that SOPA is the wrong solution to piracy and needs to be stopped?

Love4Boobies wrote:No one's giving up any liberties. I can post unrelated quotes too, if you like.

It's not unrelated at all. Let me help you:
liberty is analogous to freedom of the internet
security is analogous to safety of copyright

Next point on the SOPA / PIPA train of fun....

Economics.

Bringing such laws in affect adversely effects a big industry to favor a smaller one. (Internet/Entertainment)

What are your opinions on this all?

turdus wrote:

Love4Boobies wrote:No one's giving up any liberties. I can post unrelated quotes too, if you like.

It's not unrelated at all. Let me help you:
liberty is analogous to freedom of the internet
security is analogous to safety of copyright

As I already answered via PM, we're not talking about giving up the freedom to use the Internet, unless you consider providing illegal content a freedom.

CrypticalCode0 wrote:Bringing such laws in affect adversely effects a big industry to favor a smaller one. (Internet/Entertainment)

Actually, I think it's the other way around. As I've stated in a previous reply, piracy plays a big role in adverising today: It benefits those authors who are both not well-known and have something that the public would want. But this only happens because their approach is wrong. They would achieve much more by making their work cheaper or even free (with the possibility of donations), at least until they become more popular.

What exactly did you have in mind?

I'm no expert on law, but reading section 102.5 of HR 3261 as available on judiciary.house.gov there is stated that

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 in-
junction, 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 ac-
tivity as a foreign infringing site.

This in combination with the sections following it does seem to imply that aside from having to send a notice to me the attorney general can block my site without me having a chance to make a statement to the courts. As an attorney general might take claims from big company's in good faith this does come down to blocking a website
by big companies with almost no checks.

The situation described by that paragraph specifies that the action taken must be in accordance with rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. I just digged it up---If issued without warning, the Attorney General must have (a) proof, and (b) is held responsible.

The US is doing it backwards, here in Europe the strong arm of the law go after law breakers not the party who got wronged.

It's like a witch hunt that is waiting to happen, Lynch mob comes catches a suspected witch and let him or her through some trials usualy with lethal ending to prove him or her not to be a witch.

It's just wrong to have a biased party dictate what happens, it should be done with a Neutral judge in between.
I find it that simple you break the law you get punished.

Love4Boobies wrote:

CrypticalCode0 wrote:Bringing such laws in affect adversely effects a big industry to favor a smaller one. (Internet/Entertainment)

Actually, I think it's the other way around.

SOPA won't affect piracy. It will have an adverse affect on sites with (and maybe even without) user-generated content. Especially because merely linking to an infringing site is considered grounds for a take-down.

Love4Boobies wrote:The situation described by that paragraph specifies that the action taken must be in accordance with rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. I just digged it up---If issued without warning, the Attorney General must have (a) proof, and (b) is held responsible.

So it is possible. Given the precedent of ISPs, hosts, and other providers of taking things down without much reason, how strongly do you think the Attorney General will be held responsible?