Comments on: SOPA and everyday Americans

By: Samir Zahran

Samir Zahran — Tue, 20 Dec 2011 17:52:00 +0000

No, it isn’t limited to only sites dedicated to illegal activity, as those are already illegal and taken down when discovered (if possible). This bill covers any site that users have the ability to upload content to, i.e. Facebook, YouTube, Flickr, Twitter…the list goes on and on.

People keep saying that the corporations behind this bill want to shut these sites down to censor competition, but I don’t think that’s the case. For a site to protect itself they would have to monitor all content it’s users upload, essentially approving any update the user makes before it can go live. What the corporations really would like is to be given access to these sites so they can do the moderation themselves. I think this would be a very likely outcome too, because each site would be too afraid of missing something and getting shut down.

By: Samir Zahran

Samir Zahran — Tue, 20 Dec 2011 17:47:00 +0000

9 times out of 10, when a company puts something like that in their ToS, it doesn’t give them exclusive ownership of your content, but rather states that you are giving them a limited license to use your content. Usually it’s to cover themselves if your photos turn up in an ad or promotional piece, or even in search results on the site itself.

It’s similar to McDonalds putting a warning on their coffee cups that the contents may me hot. They’re trying not to get sued by you.

By: Danzier Lea

Danzier Lea — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 20:21:00 +0000

@Kevvo: It’s copyright law. First, not even the copyright lawyers can make it work the way it’s supposed to–it’s like a plate of spaghetti instead of a ball of yarn. Second, missing so much as a period or misspelling a name is “improper citation” and the post can therefore qualify as illegal content. With this legislation, any site with posts containing improperly cited or uncited material can be “turned off”. (Wikipedia. Dictionary.com. My blog quotes from the founding fathers tagged “Who said this?” etc.)

By: Jon_Wake

Jon_Wake — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 02:25:00 +0000

As seems to be the case with most of the laws coming through, the wording is vague. Who gets to decide if a website provides ‘substantial support to piracy’? The people doing the accusing.

By: Jon_Wake

Jon_Wake — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 02:23:00 +0000

You have 100,000 dollars just sitting around? Oh, and that’s per senator, per year. Anyone who starts talking about voting with their dollar or opening up corruption to everyone has no idea how much money the plutocrats have to throw at problems. Or they’re severely delusional about how little they have.

By: kevvo

kevvo — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 01:13:00 +0000

Sorry, I’m a little confused. Doesn’t the bill only target sites that are dedicated to illegal activity and NOT sites that host user content that violates copyright? In that case, wouldn’t Abe be safe?

By: flustercluck

flustercluck — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 00:57:00 +0000

So the only way for Abe to see his photos, blog, etc. again is to hop on any international flight out of the country, THEN he can access them? Is that right?!

Sounds like an entrepreneurial opportunity for some Canadian to screen-scrape content that has been “disappeared” from US internet onto flash drives for Abe and others like him if he can’t afford the airfare. Great. (and I am being sarcastic.)

By: DewiMorgan

DewiMorgan — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 18:42:00 +0000

I don’t have a problem with the fact that our representatives can be paid fat stacks of cash to push for insane legislation. I just wish that the bidding was open and public, so that we could bid too.

*Let* the money win. I don’t care. But at least give the rest of us a chance to compete.

This kind of bidding war might even make a nice alternative to raising taxes :P

By: jeligula

jeligula — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 17:05:00 +0000

I knew this was coming when Yahoo! moved their photo service to a different location. Once my photos were ported over, I noticed that the new site owned the copyright to photos that I had taken, developed and then scanned into my computer prior to uploading to the internet. Does this mean that they own the rights to the physical photos that I scanned? Will I then be sued for using my originals however I see fit? I can accept companies taking reasonable measures to protect their intellectual property, but cases like this are using copyright to steal.

By: Julia Siever

Julia Siever — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 16:47:00 +0000

I have seen many people complaining about the “evil entertainment industry” and how they’ve paid the government officials to pass this bill for them.

If you dislike something so much, use your wallet to make your vote. The only reason the entertainment industry is such a juggernaut is because WE keep shelling out all sorts of money to keep it going.

Stop and think.

Also, it’s going to get a lot worse before the majority gets uncomfortable enough to act for any sort of changes.

By: jeremydouglass

jeremydouglass — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 16:05:00 +0000

I imagine a scenario where the government would like a website to be shut down like say… Facebook, because it can be used as an organizational tool for protests and demonstrations or even (gasp) revolution. So a video that infringes on UMG’s copyright gets posted by an operative under an account created specifically for this purpose (and made to look like any regular facebook user), and voila! No more Facebook. Or YouTube, or take your pick of whatever website the government would like gone. I don’t believe for one second that this measure is strictly about copyright. This is a move to shut down communications when the government deems it necessary and in their best interests to do so. All that’s needed is a picture or video or mp3 that is owned by a complicit third party to shut down an entire forum that millions use. The piracy angle is just that… an angle. This is the internet kill switch.

By: Hollow

Hollow — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 12:23:00 +0000

Naw that would be too hard, they will just move the “tide” posts so it looks like it never comes in. Much like Obama and his “veto” of bills he never veto’ed.

By: Tynam

Tynam — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 11:38:00 +0000

Also, you’re being unfair to Cnut, who was perfectly aware that the tides would not obey him. Unlike congress.

By: digi_owl

digi_owl — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 11:23:00 +0000

And this will not dawn on the people in power because:

1. they never read things on screen. Their aides print it out for them if it is deemed important, or just summarized by same if not.

2. anything they deem important is stored on government-secured servers, rather than cloud services.

By: travtastic

travtastic — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 11:02:00 +0000

Sir, I’ll see your reasonable question and raise you a rofl.

By: shadowfirebird

shadowfirebird — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 09:17:00 +0000

You know, once SOPA passes and it gets used just *one* time, I’m willing to bet that a lot of internet services will close regardless of whether SOPA is used against them.

Either they will perceive the risk as too great — or their sponsors will.

By: SpaceBeers

SpaceBeers — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 08:41:00 +0000

I’m in a very similar boat. Same as awaiting to see if the Euro implodes before buying a house. Lots of things seem to be out of my control and I don’t like it.

Just out of interest what are the actual technical methods they’re planning on using for this? I assume there are already methods of bypassing them out there?

Its scary to think people that think this is a good idea are in charge of anything let alone a whole country.

By: benher

benher — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 08:21:00 +0000

Cliffs? There’s going to be cliffs? Why wasn’t I told!?
I want my cliff now! NOW! I deserve it! Whatever this cliff thing is, I want to run toward it!

By: sigdrifa

sigdrifa — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 07:31:00 +0000

Well, it still has to pass both houses *and* needs to be signed by Obama. I don’t think that’s gonna happen in the current form. Besides, it only takes one person to filibuster, and it’s gone. For once I think filibustering might be a good idea.

By: ialreadyexist

ialreadyexist — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 06:35:00 +0000

Good thing Obama’s in office and ready to veto it. Oh, wait…. Will you idiots EVER learn that there is just ONE political party in Washington?

SOPA cannot become law without the support of democrats. SOPA cannot become law without the signature of Obama. SOPA isn’t about piracy at all. SOPA is about getting control of free speech. Republicans want to stop your free speech about topics A, B, and C. Democrats want to stop your free speech about topics X, Y, and Z. Somewhere in the middle there is an overlap, but that really doesn’t matter.

They are playing the classic divide and conquer game and you, like lemmings, will follow them off the cliff.

By: Dave K

Dave K — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 06:18:00 +0000

Why this bill is so bad is that with the DMCA, the copyright owner can file a claim against the material posted on a website and the site will be obligated to take it down, leaving the site itself intact. No harm, no foul.
What SOPA will do is allow the copyright owner to file a claim against the site itself and they must file a counter notice to stop an injunction to take down the entire site.
Now imagine the number of DMCA notices that YouTube and Google deal with on a daily basis. They have a very efficient and somewhat automated way of handling those claims.
Imagine what would happen if they were constantly fighting SOPA copyright claims to try and keep their site online. Imagine the administrative nightmare that would ensue!
Why would anybody want to start a user generated site when having to deal with that?

By: noen

noen — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 04:50:00 +0000

Well, this is the Tea Party congress. What do people expect? These are the same people who believe that if you cut taxes you increase gov revenues, global warming is a hoax and Obama a socialist. I fully expect one of them to set up a throne on the beach and pass a law ordering the tides to not come in.

By: elix

elix — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 04:24:00 +0000

I was more thinking of the War of 1812 and how the White House got burned by “accident.” But I expect a copy of SOPA would survive.

Note: I am not advocating domestic terrorism against US congress.

By: Kommkast

Kommkast — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 04:19:00 +0000

Don’t suppose there is a chance that the documents for SOPA will be destroyed in a freak “accident” do you?

By: Warren Grant

Warren Grant — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 03:15:00 +0000

Its already been bought and paid for by the relevant corporate interests, so your congressional members have to work a little overtime to ensure they continue to get paid

By: wobinidan

wobinidan — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 02:55:00 +0000

It got delayed, yes. They will be passing, sorry, I mean discussing it again in 5 days time. During their holiday break. But if you start now, maybe your website will make it to the kind of level where you can merely be intimidated into removing content, instead of being closed down entirely.

Those assholes in congress wouldn’t work during the holidays if a comet was going to hit Washington DC next week, but they sure are willing to work hard for this bill.

By: Kommkast

Kommkast — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 02:45:00 +0000

SOPA is what is actually keeping me from starting my own website at this point, I’m afraid to piss someone off and get jailed for no reason. Photography tends to have a bit of a risk with it after all.. but since it got delayed a bit I think I’ll reconsider.

By: Joe Moya

Joe Moya — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 02:11:00 +0000

In some instance, it is not that the populace is ignorant… but, can not vote out a representative because they have no one running against them in the election. In the case of the Texas Representative sponsoring and railroading the SOPA bill, he has no one running against him (at least this was the case the last I looked) and he is located in a gerrymandered GOP exclusive electoral district.
As a result, the odds are massively stacked against any minority party (including the Democratic Party) to obtain funding and votes. So much so, many who are apposed to certain candidates do not even vote since there are no opposing candidates. I guess you could say… democratic choice defined by the vote doesn’t exist in many congressional districts throughout the US. …Especially in Republican dominated states such as Texas. As a result, you see legislation such as SOPA and PIPA.

By: Rks1157

Rks1157 — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 02:06:00 +0000

Yes and no. The ag is under no obligation to advise Abe that his stuff is made unavailable but the bill does describe a process in which the site owners are served notice before action is taken.

You can read the bill here:
http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/112%20HR%203261.pdf

By: Tim Robertson

Tim Robertson — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 01:59:00 +0000

BTW, it’s Alex Macgillivray.