Protest SOPA and PIPA!!

[Opti]

I'm surprised no one has posted about this yet. I first saw SOPA and PIPA mentioned on craigslist yesterday.

Below is a small snippet from an article on
redtape.msnbc.msn.com

Meanwhile, At CES, Wyden and Issa stumped for their alternative to SOPA, which they call the OPEN Act, or Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade Act.

"I do not believe you can go out and damage the architecture of the Internet in the name of anti-piracy," Wyden said at his press conference, according to Twice.com

Issa, who ran a technology company before entering Congress, has complained that SOPA supporters in Congress don’t know enough about technology or the Internet to evaluate the legislation. The OPEN Act would take responsibility for enforcing anti-piracy rules away from the federal court system and give it to the U.S. International Trade Commission, a quasi-judicial body that advices Congress on international trade issues and has some enforcement power regarding unfair trade practices, such as product dumping or copyright infringement. The OPEN Act would also tone down some of SOPA’s provisions, such as the ability to quickly blacklist allegedly offending domains.

It's hard keeping track of who's for and against SOPA, and why the legislation is important in the first place. (Even the Daily Show's Jon Stewart admitted as much during Wednesday's show). Fortunately, there are some tools that can help. A website named SOPA OPERA allows visitors to search members of Congress geographically or alphabetically to see where they stand, based on public statements and other research.

The website TheoriesofConspiracy.com contains a list of what it says are about 350 companies that support SOPA. Most are media creation companies.

A more official list of supporters is published on the House Judiciary Committee's website (PDF).

The Center for Democracy and Technology is maintaining a list of firms that have "expressed concern" with SOPA, including heavy-hitters like Yahoo, Facebook, Google, and Twitter.

But the battle lines drawn over the SOPA fight can be messy. As msnbc.com’s Kyle Orland has written, some industries -- such as gaming -- are evenly split for and against the legislation.

I haven't read much, just this article and watched the video snippet
of Morning Joe which had Chris Dodd on who now is acting on behalf of the Motion Picture industry. Per him this legislation was created to
go after piracy now that the earlier law has driven most of the websites off-shore. I think that's why they are penalizing sites who may or may not intentionally link to such content. Its an easier judicial remedy to go after a US based website than an off shore one.



What do you think? Have you been following this and reading up on it?

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

I posted an article on this yesterday, no one was interested.

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

The little I know about this is that the music industry and Hollywood is also pushing for this legislation.

This is about intellectual property rights.

[billisonboard]

Jan 18, 2012 9:38:24 GMT -5 Opti said:

I'm surprised no one has posted about this yet. ...

I'm not, it isn't an issue that is easy to attack on purely partisan lines.

Just sayin'

[Opti]

Got it Bills. It would need to be addressed as an issue not a knee jerk us vs. them paradigm.


Sometimes I forget I'm one of the few on P&M who prefer to talk about the issues and solutions instead of deriving joy in the my side is better than your side wars.

[Opti]

Jan 18, 2012 9:42:54 GMT -5 Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ said:

The little I know about this is that the music industry and Hollywood is also pushing for this legislation.

This is about intellectual property rights.

Yes it is and it has to do with the fact most of the problem has gone offshore. Where is the thread on the article you posted?

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

Jan 18, 2012 9:55:04 GMT -5 Opti said:

Jan 18, 2012 9:42:54 GMT -5 Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ said:

The little I know about this is that the music industry and Hollywood is also pushing for this legislation.

This is about intellectual property rights.

Yes it is and it has to do with the fact most of the problem has gone offshore. Where is the thread on the article you posted?

Likely on page 2 or 3.

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

Here is the link:

notmsnmoney.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=politics&action=display&thread=18956

[PK Bucko]

This is some intensely technical mumbo jumbo. As a musician I'm inclined to support the legislation, but I've yet to see the actual wording.

I am adamantly opposed to suppressing free speech. But I am as opposed to people steeling others intellectual property. This is starting to sound like NAPSTER on steroids.

[pepper112765]

Jan 18, 2012 9:38:24 GMT -5 Opti said:

I'm surprised no one has posted about this yet. I first saw SOPA and PIPA mentioned on craigslist yesterday.

Below is a small snippet from an article on
redtape.msnbc.msn.com

Meanwhile, At CES, Wyden and Issa stumped for their alternative to SOPA, which they call the OPEN Act, or Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade Act.

"I do not believe you can go out and damage the architecture of the Internet in the name of anti-piracy," Wyden said at his press conference, according to Twice.com

Issa, who ran a technology company before entering Congress, has complained that SOPA supporters in Congress don’t know enough about technology or the Internet to evaluate the legislation. The OPEN Act would take responsibility for enforcing anti-piracy rules away from the federal court system and give it to the U.S. International Trade Commission, a quasi-judicial body that advices Congress on international trade issues and has some enforcement power regarding unfair trade practices, such as product dumping or copyright infringement. The OPEN Act would also tone down some of SOPA’s provisions, such as the ability to quickly blacklist allegedly offending domains.

It's hard keeping track of who's for and against SOPA, and why the legislation is important in the first place. (Even the Daily Show's Jon Stewart admitted as much during Wednesday's show). Fortunately, there are some tools that can help. A website named SOPA OPERA allows visitors to search members of Congress geographically or alphabetically to see where they stand, based on public statements and other research.

The website TheoriesofConspiracy.com contains a list of what it says are about 350 companies that support SOPA. Most are media creation companies.

A more official list of supporters is published on the House Judiciary Committee's website (PDF).

The Center for Democracy and Technology is maintaining a list of firms that have "expressed concern" with SOPA, including heavy-hitters like Yahoo, Facebook, Google, and Twitter.

But the battle lines drawn over the SOPA fight can be messy. As msnbc.com’s Kyle Orland has written, some industries -- such as gaming -- are evenly split for and against the legislation.

I haven't read much, just this article and watched the video snippet
of Morning Joe which had Chris Dodd on who now is acting on behalf of the Motion Picture industry. Per him this legislation was created to
go after piracy now that the earlier law has driven most of the websites off-shore. I think that's why they are penalizing sites who may or may not intentionally link to such content. Its an easier judicial remedy to go after a US based website than an off shore one.



What do you think? Have you been following this and reading up on it?

Basically it is Intellectual property (copyrighted works, etc.) v. the First Amendment

[Deleted]

It's IP, but puts the monitoring onus on the wrong parties. How on earth could Google be responsible for every piece of content that is searchable on their site. It is an ill conceived piece of work. The intention is right, but the how is unreasonable.

If Hollywood wants to protect their IP, they can do so, just like every other for profit company!!! Microsoft doesn't make computer manufacturers responsible to ensure that stolen software doesn't get loaded . . . they come up with their own security measures & monitoring practices.

I DO NOT support the legislation as currently written.

[PK Bucko]

Basically it is Intellectual property (copyrighted works, etc.) v. the First Amendment

What you have quoted is what's in the O.P. I see a lot of opinions there, but not the wording of the law. If it is as you say, Intellectual property vs. free speech then free speech wins. However, if that property was stolen, then the free speech laws do not apply.

[PK Bucko]

How on earth could Google be responsible for every piece of content that is searchable on their site.

If Google is not responsible for the content on their site, then who is responsible?

[moon/Laura]

Some of you may have heard about the blackout protest that many sites are participating in today against SOPA and PIPA. This CBS News article talks about it. SOPA, PIPA: What you need to know


What are they?
The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and its Senate companion, the Protect IP Act (PIPA)

A couple of excerpts:

The bills are intended to strengthen protections against copyright infringement and intellectual property theft, but Internet advocates say they would stifle expression the World Wide Web. In essence, the legislation has pitted content providers -- like the music and film industries -- against Silicon Valley.

What does the legislation do?

There are already laws that protect copyrighted material, including the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). But while the DMCA focuses on removing specific, unauthorized content from the Internet, SOPA and PIPA instead target the platform -- that is, the site hosting the unauthorized content.

The bills would give the Justice Department the power to go after foreign websites willfully committing or facilitating intellectual property theft -- "rogue" sites like The Pirate Bay. The government would be able to force U.S.-based companies, like Internet service providers, credit card companies and online advertisers, to cut off ties with those sites.

From Fight For the Future (which had a video):

"The video above discusses the Senate version of the House's Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). In the Senate the bill is called the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA). SOPA has gotten more attention than PIPA because it was moving faster in the legislative process. But PIPA is just as dangerous, and now it is moving faster.

PIPA would give the government new powers to block Americans' access websites that corporations don't like. The bill lets corporations and the US government censor entire websites and cut sites off from advertising, payments and donations.

This legislation will stifle free speech and innovation, and even threaten popular web services like Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook.

The bill is scheduled for a test vote in the Senate on Jan. 24th: We need to act now to let our lawmakers know just how terrible it is. "


If you want to add your voice to millions of others in protest, the link above has a form to fill out. So does americancensorship.org

[pepper112765]

Jan 18, 2012 10:35:25 GMT -5 PK Bucko said:

Basically it is Intellectual property (copyrighted works, etc.) v. the First Amendment

What you have quoted is what's in the O.P. I see a lot of opinions there, but not the wording of the law. If it is as you say, Intellectual property vs. free speech then free speech wins. However, if that property was stolen, then the free speech laws do not apply.

Not necessarily. There is always a fine line about what constitutes fair use of another's copyrighted work. There has to be protections and the rationale is that there will not be a free flow of ideas (which can apply both to speech and copyrighted works) but if a person is not being compensated or their work is being taken without attribution, then they will not be motivated to continue to create, which would be a loss for society.

It is my opinion that the ones that are most guilty of pirating are beyond the reach of the U.S., so of course, they have to have a scape goat and those are ISPs that are stateside, which is not really fair. There are already protections in place if copyrighted material is found on a website/page and a DMCA take down letter is sent to the publisher of the site and the ISP for removal of the copyrighted work and there is litigation for blatant infringers of copyright works. However, owners of content need to be diligent about protecting their works and should not depend on the government do it for them.

[Opti]

I'm wondering if today's protest is affecting the websites who are protesting in a negative way. Today craigslist has its initial page on the SOPA and PIPA with the entry to the actual site available in a hard to read color at the very bottom of the page. Two job postings I should have replied to yesterday have been deleted by the author on the site. They are fairly recent so I'm not sure if they were pulled because they have had enough responses(low level jobs so possible) or because they disagree with what Craigslist is doing.

If someone finds a link to the actual wording of SOPA and PIPA please post it here. I would like to read it before I contact my legislators or not. Thanks!





I think making Google responsible for content they provide is fine. Since they are a search engine asking them to be responsible for any content found is too crazy and onerous to the business. Imagine if you could make the phone company responsible for law breaking of anyone associated with a phone number they supplied.

[PK Bucko]

Not necessarily. There is always a fine line about what constitutes fair use of another's copyrighted work. There has to be protections and the rationale is that there will not be a free flow of ideas (which can apply both to speech and copyrighted works) but if a person is not being compensated or their work is being taken without attribution, then they will not be motivated to continue to create, which would be a loss for society

Agreed.

It is my opinion that the ones that are most guilty of pirating are beyond the reach of the U.S., so of course, they have to have a scape goat and those are ISPs that are stateside, which is not really fair. There are already protections in place if copyrighted material is found on a website/page and a DMCA take down letter is sent to the publisher of the site and the ISP for removal of the copyrighted work and there is litigation for blatant infringers of copyright works. However, owners of content need to be diligent about protecting their works and should not depend on the government do it for them

While I agree that owners should be proactive in protecting their work, what method of protection would not involve government? (legislation, laws, courts)

EX. If I've written, recorded and copy written a song and someone (google or whoever) steels it, how to I protect myself without using a government apparatus?

If you're argument is that the laws already exist and that they should be applied as necessary, I can be swayed to that. But the Internet should not be exempted from such laws.

[henryclay]

I read the entire article. What I get is that the law is well intended, but when Wikipidea and a couple of other sites voluntarily shut down in protest it gets my attention.

What I see included in the law is tha part that makes piracy out of you and I posting, (or cutting and pasting from), a link to someone else's work and not paying them a royalty. It seems the law will allow us to "discuss" other people's work, , , , , just as long as we don't forward, or quote, their work in it's entirety.

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

Jan 18, 2012 11:22:15 GMT -5 henryclay said:

I read the entire article. What I get is that the law is well intended, but when Wikipidea and a couple of other sites voluntarily shut down in protest it gets my attention.

What I see included in the law is tha part that makes piracy out of you and I posting, (or cutting and pasting from), a link to someone else's work and not paying them a royalty. It seems the law will allow us to "discuss" other people's work, , , , , just as long as we don't forward, or quote, their work in it's entirety.

When we paste articles and such from other sites, we are not doing so for profit. We all give credit to the source though.

[PK Bucko]

Jan 18, 2012 11:28:27 GMT -5 Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ said:

Jan 18, 2012 11:22:15 GMT -5 henryclay said:

I read the entire article. What I get is that the law is well intended, but when Wikipidea and a couple of other sites voluntarily shut down in protest it gets my attention.

What I see included in the law is tha part that makes piracy out of you and I posting, (or cutting and pasting from), a link to someone else's work and not paying them a royalty. It seems the law will allow us to "discuss" other people's work, , , , , just as long as we don't forward, or quote, their work in it's entirety.

When we paste articles and such from other sites, we are not doing so for profit. We all give credit to the source though.

I also take note of my government's "well intentions".

I wonder from what I'm seeing here, if ProBoards could be construed as having profited from any of us posting an article as part of discussion?... Seems ridiculous, but you never know about the genius's in DC.

[resolution]

The link to the bill is here judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/112%20HR%203261.pdf if you have the patience to read it.

The provisions that most people object to is that a site can be shut down because of a link to another site that contains pirated work. So if someone on this forum or an unrelated proboard forum posts a link to a site that also contains some pirated video clip or copywritten text, proboards could be shut down.

Someone could also be shut down for posting directions on how to access a censored site, for example if a political site got cut off and someone on the forum posted directions on how to access it, then again proboards could be blocked.

[handyman2]

The problem is that the net is so vast and diverse in it's reach that passing any laws is going to be almost impossible to keep control of it. The Genie is out of the bottle.

[pepper112765]

Jan 18, 2012 11:19:10 GMT -5 Opti said:

I'm wondering if today's protest is affecting the websites who are protesting in a negative way. Today craigslist has its initial page on the SOPA and PIPA with the entry to the actual site available in a hard to read color at the very bottom of the page. Two job postings I should have replied to yesterday have been deleted by the author on the site. They are fairly recent so I'm not sure if they were pulled because they have had enough responses(low level jobs so possible) or because they disagree with what Craigslist is doing.

If someone finds a link to the actual wording of SOPA and PIPA please post it here. I would like to read it before I contact my legislators or not. Thanks!





I think making Google responsible for content they provide is fine. Since they are a search engine asking them to be responsible for any content found is too crazy and onerous to the business. Imagine if you could make the phone company responsible for law breaking of anyone associated with a phone number they supplied.

On that, I agree -- if they CREATED the content, then they are responsible for it, however, it would definitely be burdensome to police third-party content.

[Deleted]

But, when we post the full text of articles. by eliminating the need for us to visit the source website directly, we are potentially taking their revenue, because you aren't seeing all of their super cool pop-ups and banner ads. We may be redirecting that revenue to ProBoards - surely someone must click on those banner ads? I don't, but I'm grateful to whoever does for keeping the site free.

I can see their beef. It seems like SOPA and PIPA went too far. They are well-intentioned, and possibly needed laws - but they swing too far in the direction of limiting free speech.

[pepper112765]

Jan 18, 2012 11:28:27 GMT -5 Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ said:

Jan 18, 2012 11:22:15 GMT -5 henryclay said:

I read the entire article. What I get is that the law is well intended, but when Wikipidea and a couple of other sites voluntarily shut down in protest it gets my attention.

What I see included in the law is tha part that makes piracy out of you and I posting, (or cutting and pasting from), a link to someone else's work and not paying them a royalty. It seems the law will allow us to "discuss" other people's work, , , , , just as long as we don't forward, or quote, their work in it's entirety.

When we paste articles and such from other sites, we are not doing so for profit. We all give credit to the source though.

The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use:

“quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment;

quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations;

use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report;

reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy;

reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson;

reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports;

incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”

www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

[PK Bucko]

Thank you Kari. I read through the first few pages. Lawyerspeak. ACK

I can see their beef. It seems like SOPA and PIPA went too far. They are well-intentioned, and possibly needed laws - but they swing too far in the direction of limiting free speech

This is where I'm leaning now.

So the question would be, if this legislation is bad and should be scrapped, what should be put forth in its place?

[djAdvocate]

i just tweeted my representative and one of my congresswomen to kill this (these) thing (things).

[Deleted]

keepthewebopen.com/

Google and others are supporting the OPEN Act. I confess, I haven't read enough about it to know if that is the right fix or not.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 18, 2012 11:51:07 GMT -5 @craftysarah said:

keepthewebopen.com/

Google and others are supporting the OPEN Act. I confess, I haven't read enough about it to know if that is the right fix or not.

Sarah- are you familiar with EFF (the Electronic Fronteir Foundation)? i have found their positioning on issues of privacy and transparency to be overwhelmingly correct and thoughtful.

[pepper112765]

Jan 18, 2012 11:21:14 GMT -5 PK Bucko said:

Not necessarily. There is always a fine line about what constitutes fair use of another's copyrighted work. There has to be protections and the rationale is that there will not be a free flow of ideas (which can apply both to speech and copyrighted works) but if a person is not being compensated or their work is being taken without attribution, then they will not be motivated to continue to create, which would be a loss for society

Agreed.

It is my opinion that the ones that are most guilty of pirating are beyond the reach of the U.S., so of course, they have to have a scape goat and those are ISPs that are stateside, which is not really fair. There are already protections in place if copyrighted material is found on a website/page and a DMCA take down letter is sent to the publisher of the site and the ISP for removal of the copyrighted work and there is litigation for blatant infringers of copyright works. However, owners of content need to be diligent about protecting their works and should not depend on the government do it for them

While I agree that owners should be proactive in protecting their work, what method of protection would not involve government? (legislation, laws, courts)

EX. If I've written, recorded and copy written a song and someone (google or whoever) steels it, how to I protect myself without using a government apparatus?

If you're argument is that the laws already exist and that they should be applied as necessary, I can be swayed to that. But the Internet should not be exempted from such laws.

The internet is not exempt from those laws. The point is that most piracy is out of the reach of the U.S. in order to prosecute, so they are going after those that link, etc. to "pirated" material that are "within their reach."

Owners of intellectual property, which includes copyrights, trademark, patents and even trade secrets, have to be diligent. No one person knows the composition of ingredients in Coca-Cola, nor do people know the Colonial's seven herb and spice mixture for Kentucky fried chicken. Those are trade secrets and protected. If people found them out, they would then be worthless to that company. If a company's trademark is diluted, it is then deemed worthless. Xerox is a prime example of a diluted trademark and it is diluted because the action of copying a piece of paper, was termed Xeroxing, which diluted the mark.

With respect to copyrighted works, for example, we prosecute copyright claims for online publishers of certain technical publications that cost quite a bit of money to create and are forwarded to subscribers by email. In that email, the subscriber is warned that forwarding or copying is prohibited unless there is an express license or full subscription or what have you allowing that activity. Some publishers utilize tracking software and if so, you are also warned. The tracking software can provide the owner with information as to whom the subscriber forwarded the content, how many times it was opened and how often it was forwarded. Each of those actions outside the scope of the license or subscription is infringement of a copyrighted work. If, for instance, the publisher of the content were to litigate in federal court actual damages can range from $750.00 to $30,000 for each ISSUE of a work. If an infringer has been found to willfully infringe another's copyrighted work, exemplary damages up to $150,000 per issue infringed can be awarded.

However, owners of copyrighted works can't recover if they are not diligent in protecting their works. No one is going to do this work for them. So yes, the apparatus does exist and the internet is definitely not exempt. The problem is getting the correct perpetrator in order to recover damages or stop the pirating or copyright infringement of certain works.