Fuck sopa

[dandelion]

But is this only in the US? They wouldn't be able to block access to a non-US site from Europe or something?

Some supporter of the bill from the US was being intervied and said that of course anyone abroad with an affected website would have just the same rights as any american to apply to a US federal court to get their website unblocked. Fine.So how much would it cost to hire an expert in international law to go to the US and sort it, even if you had a cast iron case to object to them having closed you down? As I understood it any bank affected by US law, which means all of them, would be required to block payments to you wherever you are in the world from wherever they came. So someone in the US objects to your site, It gets closed down. You can go to the US to complain. Betcha this would have been used against wikileaks.

 

[t1ctac]

...a balance needs to be struck between safeguarding liberty and freedom of expression on the one hand and protecting people's property on the other...

A few years ago I posted a pee desperation story on an adult website and was subsequently delighted to find it published some months later, without any acknowledgement, in a magazine. I complained to the magazine in question only to be told rather bluntly that as I'd posted it on their website it was theirs to do what they wanted with and, if I'd read the small print on the website I should have been aware of that. Legally I don't think they had right on their side - at least not under UK law. However they also realised there was little realistic prospect of me taking them to court over it and gambled, quite correctly, that they could get away with it. However that didn't make it right morally or, I suspect, legally either.

Picture if you could complain to a judge and get the magazine shut down for somebody else submitting the story as their own. That is, in no way, a balanced approach.

 

[EagleCowboy]

What would really happen is this:

I've been studying those stupid bills. Say your site was legit and had no one else's copyrighted stuff on it but yours. Say someone at Columbia Pictures, government, or someone you pissed off, viewed your site and didn't like what you had, saw it as some type of threat to them, or just simply didn't like something you said on the site. They would just file a complaint, and your site would be erased instantly. No proof needed. No warning, no nothing. And worse, you have absolutely NO recourse. So basically you're just screwed. But there's nothing in those bills that says you can't do it back to them. (of course if everyone did this to everyone, we would have an internet with nothing on it.)

Also, for sites that manage to stay in existence, they would be heavily censored. So if you're talking to someone about Occupy Wall Street, it will most likely be changed into something else by the time it reaches the party you sent it to. Remember how Yahoo recently censored emails? (and they're still doing it) Just like that.

 

[hud01]

I think I understand the point of view of those opposed to sopa. However I also think a balance needs to be struck between safeguarding liberty and freedom of expression on the one hand and protecting people's property on the other. The advent of the internet has made copyright much more difficult to enforce than was previously the case. I think one has to make the default assumption that if one posts their deepest thoughts on the internet, they effectively become public property.

A few years ago I posted a pee desperation story on an adult website and was subsequently delighted to find it published some months later, without any acknowledgement, in a magazine. I complained to the magazine in question only to be told rather bluntly that as I'd posted it on their website it was theirs to do what they wanted with and, if I'd read the small print on the website I should have been aware of that. Legally I don't think they had right on their side - at least not under UK law. However they also realised there was little realistic prospect of me taking them to court over it and gambled, quite correctly, that they could get away with it. However that didn't make it right morally or, I suspect, legally either.

The laws are already in place. What this law would do is force web sites to verify ownership of content. If you post video to youtube using copyrighted music, youtube would be liable.

What happened to you is you turned over rights to your story to the web site. This law wold not change that.

 

[Rob_E]

There is already a perfectly good legal process for removing pirated content or getting a site shut down. The danger in this legislation is that it seeks to circumvent the legal process.

 

[798686]

I found this article to be a good perspective on the issue Tim O’Reilly: Why I’m fighting SOPA — Tech News and Analysis.

I don't support piracy or copyright infringement, of course. However, what these bills do is to create a tool that would allow government to arbitrarily take down a site that they don't like without any due process of law. It allows an attack on the DNS level, meaning that no website in the world would be safe.

This is the same type of censorship that is used by China, Iran, etc. It would forever change free speech in the US. We must not let this prevail.

:frown1: Is there anyway piracy/copyright infringement and other definite no-nos can be tackled without opening the door to arbitrary site take-downs?

Like possibly have a universal/worldwide ToS online, where only sites infringing those agreed principles could be taken down (after certain disciplinary procedures)? Obviously it would take a lot of discussion before rules could be agreed (maybe anything involving paedophilia, etc?) - or would this also eventually be a trojan horse to allow state-controlled net censorship?

There is already a perfectly good legal process for removing pirated content or getting a site shut down. The danger in this legislation is that it seeks to circumvent the legal process.

That sounds dangerous. :redface: Much like over here, where Blair's sweeping anti-terrorism laws meant ppl could be detained without trial by jury (and without charge for a certain amount of time) - diff topic, but same disregard for due legal process, and those laws could (and have been) invoked for entirely un-related purposes.

 

[Panda2007]

This is what we get for voting in big-government politicians. However, this bill is doa.

 

[karldergrosse]

That sounds dangerous. :redface: Much like over here, where Blair's sweeping anti-terrorism laws meant ppl could be detained without trial by jury (and without charge for a certain amount of time) - diff topic, but same disregard for due legal process, and those laws could (and have been) invoked for entirely un-related purposes.

Ditto in the USA.

However, this bill is doa.

One certainly hopes so, anyway...!!!

 

[sykray]

Google Avaaz. They have a global petition to sign online.

 

[EagleCowboy]

SOPA has only been shelved. That means they can vote on it when no one is looking. So it is potentially still a threat. PIPA is still a CURRENT threat and comes to a vote on Jan 24, 2012.

 

[kenny233]

The feds have shut down Megaupload.com pretty quick without any questions.

FBI charges Megaupload operators with piracy crimes | Media Maverick - CNET News

The Mega empire: Details of the MegaUpload indictment — Tech News and Analysis

I don't know what the due process is supposed to be for shutting down websites, but I just read these articles and now I am curious what warrants a shut down.

Edit: I guess I could have started a new thread, but this seems in line with the topic, and the timing is right...

 

[bobg4400]

SOPA didn't pas so If they've shut megaupload down then it wouold be under the copright law that already exist which allows them to shut down sites once they've collected enough evidence. Also they've been arresting executives of the company under criminal charges.
In reality it's simply bad timing that they shut it down just after the SOPA protest but if they had enough evidence and so what they were doing was perfectly legal there's no reason for them to delay.

EDIT: wikipedia links to a copy of the indictment on wallstreet journal- its dated january 5th so has nothing to do with the SOPA prtoests or anything - it's just bad timing.

 

[Yorkie]

They're postponed for now : BBC News - Sopa and Pipa bills postponed in US Congress

As others have pointed out there is already enough legislation in place to close down any website that copyright holders take a dislike to.
A student in Sheffield is being threatend with extradition and up to 5 years in jail in the U.S just for posting links to tv shows.
BBC News - 'Piracy' student Richard O'Dwyer loses extradition case

While a lot of flak is rightfully being directed at U.S lawmakers it shouldn't be forgotten that this case is being brought with the complicity of an utter twat from the English judiciary.The main complaint seems to be that the site made thousands from advertising revenue.That's not illegal as far as I know.There is a big difference between linking to copyrighted material and uploading it.

 

[deleted554107]

now fileserve seems to be scared or mandated into only allowing files that YOU upload to be downloaded.. maybe there will be a domino effect of self-policing.

 

[helgaleena]

May the petitions to legislators continue and prevent them both from coming back in stealth mode. Sign every petition, use the telephone. Please.

 

[lucky8]

SOPA didn't pas so If they've shut megaupload down then it wouold be under the copright law that already exist which allows them to shut down sites once they've collected enough evidence. Also they've been arresting executives of the company under criminal charges.
In reality it's simply bad timing that they shut it down just after the SOPA protest but if they had enough evidence and so what they were doing was perfectly legal there's no reason for them to delay.

EDIT: wikipedia links to a copy of the indictment on wallstreet journal- its dated january 5th so has nothing to do with the SOPA prtoests or anything - it's just bad timing.

You have a lot to learn about this crazy world we live in. It's wasn't a coincidence, it was a big fuck you to those that oppose SOPA...this is all coordinated...

 

[Yorkie]

A number of users have said that they have been unable to access legitimately uploaded material as a result of the legal action.
After the shutdown one user tweeted, "I'm vehemently against copyright infringement: the files I lost were created & owned by me for my job."

BBC News - Megaupload users face data deletion US prosecutors warn

If customers legitimate files are deleted shouldn't the U.S be receiving several million lawsuits?