Mainstream Press Realizing That E-PARASITE/SOPA Is Ridiculously Broad

from the good-for-them dept

Fri, Nov 4th 2011 5:57am — Mike Masnick

It's been unfortunate that the mainstream press hasn't really spent much time digging into the actual details of the text of the E-PARASITE/SOPA bill, and just how awful it is. At best, some of them have done a "well, the tech industry is worried about it" kind of piece, without actually looking at the details. Thankfully, some in the press really are digging in. James Temple, at the SF Chronicle, has an excellent and detailed piece about how SOPA would do more to "stop online innovation" than it would ever do to stop online "piracy." Just a snippet:

There are lots of concerns here, including the amount of discretion it hands to the attorney general. But another big worry is that blocking the domain name for one infringing site (say, latviablogging.com/counterfeitrolexes) could prevent access to thousands of innocent ones also hosted under that domain (like latviablogging.com/motherscookierecipes).

"It is inevitable that there will be bad behavior on any site that has thousands and thousands of dedicated subsections," said Dane Jasper, CEO of Santa Rosa Internet service provider Sonic.net. Cutting off the entire site's traffic and funds amounts to an "Internet death penalty" without a trial, he said.

It also highlights the ridiculous broad drafting and confusing language in the bill -- something SOPA/E-PARASITE defenders still refuse to admit. The worst of the worst is in the definition of what constitutes "dedicated to the theft of U.S. property." The dreadful drafting is going to lead to massive lawsuits:

This section of the bill appears to apply to both U.S.-based sites and foreign ones, or even a portion of a site, if it's "dedicated to theft of U.S. property." One of the key definitions of that is if a site "is taking, or has taken, deliberate actions to avoid confirming a high probability" of infringement. Public Knowledge, a Washington, D.C., public interest group, helpfully boiled down that clumsy legalese to: "lacking sufficient zeal to prevent copyright infringement."

In other words, it would place the responsibility for detecting and policing infringement onto the site itself, rather than content owners, as required under the DMCA.

"There's really not much question that this bill is designed to do an end run around the DMCA," said Corynne McSherry, intellectual property director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital rights group in San Francisco. "What has been affirmed by court after court is that service providers do not have to affirmatively police infringement. That's a good thing because it's a terrible burden to put on a service provider."

The thing that gets me is that if defenders of this bill were intellectually honest, they'd just admit that they were, in fact, trying to change the DMCA, and have a conversation on that point. So far, only Rep. Bob Goodlatte has been intellectually honest enough to admit that's the case. However, others in our comments and on other sites keep insisting that the bill is "narrowly drafted" just to impact the worst of the worst. Anyone who reads the plain (if convoluted) text of the bill knows that's simply not true. A "narrowly drafted" bill does not impact pretty much every internet property, like SOPA does.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: danger, e-parasite, innovation, press, sopa

218 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 6:07am

This SOPA/E-PREDATOR is an insult to our Constitution and it should never have happened.Truly disgusting how low this Government has sunk.I can say no more as we all here can see with our own techie eyes the ramifacations of this piece of toilet paper.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Stuart, 4 Nov 2011 @ 7:04am
  
  Re:
  With the last few administrations the toilet paper is the US Constitution.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fushta (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 6:23am

DNS Blocking Analogy
Since some pro-SOPA/E-PARASITE people like to relate the digital realm to the real world, I have an analogy to offer.

Blocking a DNS for a domain that has multiple non-infringing sub-domains just because one site is infringing is like closing down an entire mall because one store is selling counterfeit socks. In what world, be it digital or real, does that make sense?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Doe, 4 Nov 2011 @ 6:30am
  
  Re: DNS Blocking Analogy
  That is a great analogy and I think if people really understood that this is what is going on with these bills, they would put a stop to it. Unfortunately, there are so many facets of business, law and government that we are blind to most of it and that is how they slip stuff by us.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 6:40am
  
  Re: DNS Blocking Analogy
  The SOPA/E-PARASITE supporters would reply that the mall should have detected that one of it's stores was selling counterfeit socks and should have closed it down or alerted the authorities. It is, after all, the right thing to do, right?
  
  But this highlights the biggest problem with these laws. They don't provide better tools to deal with infringement. They don't create harsher penalties for infringers. They simply shift the responsibility of detecting and stopping infringement to service providers (the mall in this case) and then punish them for failing to do it.
  
  In short, they turn service providers into enforcers of "intellectual property". The pirates, well, they just keep on pirating, as usual.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 7:51am
    
    Re: Re: DNS Blocking Analogy
    If the mall owner didn't have leases, allowed anyone to set up a table and sell, and ignored what was going on, it would be willful blindness. We aren't talking about "Macy's has counterfeit stuff" here, we are talking about a bunch of anonymous, untrackable people using the mall as their place business, and the mall owner ignores them.
    
    Taken one step further, let's "Filesonic" the mall. The mall owner no longer charges rent for the stores, instead he charges admission to the mall. What happens inside? He turns a blind eye. Not his problem, he isn't in the renting space business, he is in the charging for access business.
    
    You can imagine how that would turn out in the real world.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 8:31am
      
      Re: Re: Re: DNS Blocking Analogy
      This all ignores the fact that what you want is for you to have the power to accuse someone of some wrong doing without any real proof and send in the SWAT teams to do it for you as way to intimidate others to comply with your every whim.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 8:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: DNS Blocking Analogy
        Stop being a prick.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 9:22am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: DNS Blocking Analogy
        Anyone who makes a point you can't refute is a prick, eh?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Dave, 4 Nov 2011 @ 8:57am
      
      Re: Re: Re: DNS Blocking Analogy
      So flea market providers are "willfully blind" in your definition. Are you saying they should be the cops for their market area? I could see how they might be liable if something was brought to their attention (ooo! a take down notice), but otherwise I think you are dead wrong.
      
      And your filesonic comparison? Same thing. They are notified there is a problem, they take care of it and ask the sellers to leave. They shouldn't have to do the cops jobs.
      
      BTW. The DMCA is still a HORRIBLE HORRIBLE law that stiffles legitimate speech, creates undue hardship on service providers, does nothing to help copyright holders, and generally makes the world a worse place. The safe harbors provision would make sense if take down required a court order and a possible adversarial hearing, but they don't. You want to take something that sucks and make it suck poo. Yeah. That's an improvement.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - A Dan (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 9:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: DNS Blocking Analogy
        Flea markets are the perfect analogy.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Fushta (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 11:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: DNS Blocking Analogy
        Asking Flea Market operators to police their occupants' stalls is like asking the NFL officials to diagnose concussions during the game. How is the Flea Market operator supposed to know what is real/fake?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rick Diaz, 7 Nov 2011 @ 6:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: DNS Blocking Analogy
        Now take that flea market or mall and expand it by 100x. So this will be a 50 acre mall/market
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 9:45am
      
      Re: Re: Re: DNS Blocking Analogy
      That is called a flea-market. They are quite common in the US. I love going to watch the 'fleas'. Oh, it isn't illegal.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 10:47am
      
      Re: Re: Re: DNS Blocking Analogy
      So you expect the mall owner to be able to tell the difference between real and fake LV purses or Oakley sunglasses? The mall owner would also have to inspect all deliveries. The mall owner would essentially also need to have all the financial records for the store to make sure they aren't doing something fishy (like any corporation is gonna let that happen). Who is going to want to set up shop in this mall? The more you dig into this, the more ridiculous this gets. Expand this to an apartment building. Are the managers of the apartment supposed to police the residences making sure they are not engaged in illegal activity...like uploading movies to The Pirate Bay? How would he even get that information? And then you want to make him liable.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 8:37am
  
  Re: DNS Blocking Analogy
  Actually, it's like closing down the road leading to the mall and forcing people to take the alternative routes (or walk in).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Groove Tiger (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 9:06am
    
    Re: Re: DNS Blocking Analogy
    Or trying to remove the tires of any cars that are trying to get to the mall.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Doe, 4 Nov 2011 @ 6:26am

The ends justify the means?
What I will never understand about people is the need to lie to accomplish their goals. I don't know if it is just because they are naturally liars or they don't actually believe their goals are right but want to accomplish them anyway for personal benefit. If in fact their goal is good and right and noble, then why lie about it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 7:27am
  
  Re: The ends justify the means?
  If the legacy content industries ever give you an answer for that, be sure to let us know.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 6:33am

It would seem that he got the talking points memo before he started writing, and interviewed only people on one side of the discussion.

Moreover, this quote is telling:

"said Corynne McSherry, intellectual property director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital rights group in San Francisco. "What has been affirmed by court after court is that service providers do not have to affirmatively police infringement. That's a good thing because it's a terrible burden to put on a service provider.""

The exact point of SOPA and PROTECT-IP type laws is that everyone has tried to run and hide under the service provider tent. With everyone crowding under what was original support to be a small space, DMCA has become a fairly toothless tool. Yes, you can use it to get your content taken down if you spot it and if you report it, but the "innocent" service provider doesn't really have to do anything about the offender, or do anything to stop the content from reappearing moments later.

"The thing that gets me is that if defenders of this bill were intellectually honest, they'd just admit that they were, in fact, trying to change the DMCA, and have a conversation on that point."

I don't think anyone is changing DMCA, except that the definition of service provider liablity will change to reflect the reality of the internet. The service provider provisions (particularly 17 U.S.C. �� 512 A and B) were intended to address transitory networks, and C was intented for hosting companies alone. What happened was that 512 (C) 1 (B) has been very narrowly construed, in a manner where even a site like youtube (which puts commercial messages on and around offending material, and presents the stored material in web pages that it created itself) is not subject to the provision. The effect? Everyone is a service provider, and nobody is liable for anything.

The new bills work to narrow that exemption, to stop the willful blindness that goes on. Services providers may be exempt for the terms of DMCA (which isn't changing) but they will not be exempt from the new laws.

So Mike, DMCA isn't changing. Rep. Bob Goodlatte didn't say they were changing DMCA, only saying "I think it is unrealistic to think we're going to continue to rely on the DMCA notice-and-takedown provision," - that is an indication that the new laws are OVER AND ABOVE DMCA, not changing it.

It's a new layer, not a change. DMCA will still be there, and still be actively used I am sure. The new laws will just redefine how "service providers" must deal with the issues at hand.

As for the complaints of sonic.net and other actual hosting companies, they need to understand that their problem is all of these other non-hosting, non-networking companies that have tried to jam themselves into the "service provider" tent. The problem lies in allowing too many types of sites to be services providers, and as a result, their situation becomes less and less comfortable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- martyburns (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 6:38am
  
  Re:
  The exact point of SOPA and PROTECT-IP type laws is that everyone has tried to run and hide under the service provider tent. With everyone crowding under what was original support to be a small space, DMCA has become a fairly toothless tool. Yes, you can use it to get your content taken down if you spot it and if you report it, but the "innocent" service provider doesn't really have to do anything about the offender, or do anything to stop the content from reappearing moments later.
  
  The point is that it is not always possible to tell if something infringes.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - out_of_the_blue, 4 Nov 2011 @ 7:30am
    
    Re: Re: @ "not always possible to tell if something infringes"
    "The point is that it is not always possible to tell if something infringes."
    
    No, it's USUALLY easily possible. If a file host sees a 700M video file, skims its intro and three places in it and it's obviously not amateur content but a studio produced movie, then the only way around that it's not infringing is resolute willful blindness. The file host won't be infringing anyone's free speech to remove it: surely the file host has the right to remove ANY files that they can reasonably suspect. -- But of course they don't! WHY? Because making money off infringement.
    
    Don't give me the standard Youtube "flood of files, no one can possibly look at, let alone know if infringing" dodge. I'm pointing to Filesonic, Rapidshare, Megaupload, and other so-called "file lockers".
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Hephaestus (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 7:51am
      
      Re: Re: Re: @ "not always possible to tell if something infringes"
      "surely the file host has the right to remove ANY files that they can reasonably suspect."
      
      The words "reasonably suspect" are like the words "thought police". A great way to show you how wrong those words are is ...
      
      I reasonably suspect that money in your pocket is stolen, hand it over now. When you can prove, beyond a resonable doubt, it is not stolen I will return it to you.
      
      I reasonably suspect you have not paid some taxes at some point. I am taking your house, seizing your bank accounts, and putting you in jail until such a time that you prove you have not.
      
      This is the reverse of how our system is supposed to work. Paranoia, and irrational belief, and reasonably suspicion are not, and never will be proof.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 8:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: @ "not always possible to tell if something infringes"
        "I reasonably suspect that money in your pocket is stolen, hand it over now. When you can prove, beyond a resonable doubt, it is not stolen I will return it to you. "
        
        Bad analogy. I am a shop keeper, and I think that $50 you are trying to use is a fake. I decline to accept it. I don't take it and ask you for more money. I decline it and ask you to use other money to pay.
        
        Further, in the digital world, can anyone TAKE anything? Are you suggesting that a file locker would accept your upload, deem it to be illegal, and magically delete it from your home hard drive as well?
        
        "I reasonably suspect you have not paid some taxes at some point. I am taking your house, seizing your bank accounts, and putting you in jail until such a time that you prove you have not."
        
        That is pretty much how the IRS works.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 8:19am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @ "not always possible to tell if something infringes"
        I am reasonably sure that all musicians are criminals, time to freeze their accounts, seize all their assets and punish anyone who ever did business with them.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Groove Tiger (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 9:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @ "not always possible to tell if something infringes"
        Better analogy: You're a shopkeeper. Someone tries to pay you with a $50 bill. The police suspect those have been obtained in a kinda shady way. Your failure to psychically link the money to an (alleged) shady business gets your shop closed and your assets frozen.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Groove Tiger (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 9:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @ "not always possible to tell if something infringes"
        Oh wait, replace "police" with "the shop across the street that competes with you."
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Groove Tiger (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 9:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @ "not always possible to tell if something infringes"
        Damn... I guess the analogy is still not right... Let's see, you are the one running the shop across the street, getting the shop that took the $50 bill closed.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 9:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @ "not always possible to tell if something infringes"
        Wait... wait... is the parrot dead in this one, or still alive?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Groove Tiger (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 4:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @ "not always possible to tell if something infringes"
        No no he's not dead, he's restin'!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Nathan F (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 8:01am
      
      Re: Re: Re: @ "not always possible to tell if something infringes"
      The problem is that according to the US Constitution, only a judge after hearing in a court of law can determine if something is infringing on a copyright or is fair use. Look at what happened to Righthaven. They brought suit against a guy who used an ENTIRE article from one of their newspapers, Righthaven took them to court (weather or not Righthaven had that right to sue is a totally separate matter) and the Judge said, No sorry but this is a fair use of the article.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 8:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: @ "not always possible to tell if something infringes"
        "The problem is that according to the US Constitution, only a judge after hearing in a court of law can determine if something is infringing on a copyright or is fair use. "
        
        For fair use, this is true, but most of this stuff is simple to figure out.
        
        Someone uploads a hollywood movie. Ask them for the license, for their right to upload it. If they are unable to do so, then you don't accept the upload.
        
        If they claim "fair use", let them state their claim. Since fair use is fairly narrow, it would be pretty hard to come up with a good fair use explanation of why you are putting a ripped DVD into a file locker, particularly one that doesn't limit access to the original user. Fair use would be fairly exceptional on complete movies (I can't think of any off the top of my head).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Nathan F (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 8:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @ "not always possible to tell if something infringes"
        Doesn't matter if you or someone else thinks it is simple to figure out. The only person who can say if it is or is not is a Judge. Are you really suggesting that you grant to just about anyone that ability to judge infringement, because that is what it sounds like.
        
        As far as the "State their claim for fair use" the DMCA already allows that. Someone uploads something, company A sees it and thinks it is infringing and files a takedown notice. Hosting provider takes it down and sends a notice to the uploader saying someone claims copyright. Uploader thinks it is fair use and files a counter claim saying "fair use". Hosting company puts the files back up and notifies the company that the user is claiming fair use, take em to court if you want to do anything about it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 8:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @ "not always possible to tell if something infringes"
        Please show me the license form the movies you bought ten years ago or STFU!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 8:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @ "not always possible to tell if something infringes"
        Education
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 9:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @ "not always possible to tell if something infringes"
        My wife posted a picture to her Facebook account. This picture was taken by her friend, who by default retains the copyright. My wife posted this picture without her friend's consent. The picture she posted is, by definition, violating copyright.
        
        Now, explain to me the method Facebook should use to determine that this specific picture is violating copyright.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 2:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @ "not always possible to tell if something infringes"
        Been waiting all day for original AC to respond to this. I'm really quite interested. How should Facebook determine the picture in question is violating copyright?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 3:13pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @ "not always possible to tell if something infringes"
        I also wonder...and why haven't they responded......but I do have a question....
        
        How did your wife get access to the photo in order to upload it to her Facebook? Did she receive the picture from her friend? Was there any communication from the friend about what your wife was allowed to do with the photo?
        
        I would also like to note that if this passed, and if Facebook was allowed to parse photos for 'infringement', if it works like YouTube's contentID matches....then I would bet most of Facebook would be shut down. Esp when people stop at those 'take your photo here' markers.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 5 Nov 2011 @ 2:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @ "not always possible to tell if something infringes"
        This was a hypothetical. My wife would never violate others God-given right to copy.
        
        Wait. That came out wrong.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Nathan F (profile), 5 Nov 2011 @ 8:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @ "not always possible to tell if something infringes"
        The guy and his wife are at some tourist scenic site with the wife's friend. Wife says "Hey friend, take a picture of me and the hubby standing by this statue with my camera!"
        
        Voila! The camera is the property of the wife, and the picture, as taken by the friend, is copyrighted by the friend. Don't need to go about some convoluted process of getting the picture to the wife.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Nathan F (profile), 5 Nov 2011 @ 8:07am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @ "not always possible to tell if something infringes"
        Heck, we can go even more silly. It is one of those "socially connected cameras" that automagically uploads pictures taken to a Facebook account that you give it information to.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 5 Nov 2011 @ 6:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @ "not always possible to tell if something infringes"
        Not true. Your friend may have the "copyright by default" for creating it, but it truthfully doesn't matter unless they actually registered the pic for a real copyright. (or a "poor man's" copyright, both usually hold up in court) So facebook wouldn't have to do anything.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 5 Nov 2011 @ 10:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @ "not always possible to tell if something infringes"
        Your friend may have the "copyright by default" for creating it, but it truthfully doesn't matter unless they actually registered the pic for a real copyright. (or a "poor man's" copyright, both usually hold up in court) So facebook wouldn't have to do anything.
        
        This is not true at all.
        
        First of all, an artistic creation is copyright the moment it is created. You still have the copyright even if you don't register. However, without registering, you can only get an injunction and actual damages (not statutory damages or legal fees).
        
        But they have a right to use their copyright protection as much as anyone else. If they filed a DMCA notice, for example, Facebook would have to take it down. So the other A.C.'s point is perfectly valid.
        
        Also, the poor man's copyright has never actually been held valid in a U.S. court of law. Since you don't have to register for copyright protection, it's legally no different than if you never did anything at all. The only thing it might do is provide evidence of when you created it, but that has never come up in court, to my knowledge.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2011 @ 12:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @ "not always possible to tell if something infringes"
        "First of all, an artistic creation is copyright the moment it is created. You still have the copyright even if you don't register. However, without registering, you can only get an injunction and actual damages (not statutory damages or legal fees)."
        
        I know. That's what I meant by a "real copyright." lol. I just didn't remember if it had a special name or something.
        
        "Also, the poor man's copyright has never actually been held valid in a U.S. court of law."
        
        Hey. Looks like you're right. Don't know why I remembered reading otherwise somewhere...did it used to be acceptable?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 6 Nov 2011 @ 6:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @ "not always possible to tell if something infringes"
        Hey. Looks like you're right. Don't know why I remembered reading otherwise somewhere...did it used to be acceptable?
        
        No.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 6 Nov 2011 @ 10:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @ "not always possible to tell if something infringes"
        did it used to be acceptable?
        
        No, not really. I think people used to try it before 1976, which is the year when copyright became automatic (you had to register with the Library of Congress to hold a copyright before then).
        
        The idea was that it would afford you some sort of protection from people "ripping off" your songs, or something, without having to pay $20 (or whatever it was back then). But it was always just an urban legend. It's never held up in court, and I don't think it was even brought up in a court.
        
        Frankly, the type of people who couldn't afford $20 to register the copyright, are not people who can afford $200/hour lawyers to go out and sue infringers, either. So it was always completely useless.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Trails (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 8:27am
      
      Re: Re: Re: @ "not always possible to tell if something infringes"
      And "pointing" to them proves what exactly?
      
      I work for a company who's product is, in part, a content sharing platform. Our user base is quite small, and our product is dedicated to professional sharing in a specific field, so the likelihood of someone swapping movies over our site is pretty much nil. We don't have the time to review even the 10 uploads we get a day. Furthermore, it's not our place to, and actually probably a violation of privacy laws for us to arbitrarily peruse them.
      
      It's an undue burden on our startup and an ethical and (probably) legal violation. Even if we had the capacity to review them, it would be wrong.
      
      Same for the file lockers. Not up to them to review files. What if someone is exchange personal, sensitive material?
      
      The bill will legally obligate companies to pay some schlub to go trawling through everyone's personal data. The data leakage from this will be obscene.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 9:08am
      
      Re: Re: Re: @ "not always possible to tell if something infringes"
      If a file host sees a 700M video file, skims its intro and three places in it and it's obviously not amateur content but a studio produced movie, then the only way around that it's not infringing is resolute willful blindness.
      
      That's the kind of thinking that makes it difficult for some excellent amateur photographers to get their photos printed at print shops.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 5 Nov 2011 @ 6:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: @ "not always possible to tell if something infringes"
        If those "excellent amateur photographers" don't bother to copyright their own work so they can have ready proof that it is indeed their own work, then it's their own damn fault. Hell, you can get a creative commons license for free...so no excuse imo.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 5 Nov 2011 @ 10:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @ "not always possible to tell if something infringes"
        Hell, you can get a creative commons license for free...so no excuse imo.
        
        And, again, you're really confused about all this.
        
        If the photographers have the right to use a Creative Commons license, then they already hold the copyright on the pictures.
        
        A CC license is a copyright license. It's just a specific kind of copyright license, that is designed to allow (or not) certain uses of the work.
        
        And it's not like Creative Commons issues licenses; they just offer them for use by artists. (It's kind of like offering a "sample contract" on a website, for anyone to use in their own contractual deals.) They don't issue anything, and they don't have any sort of database; there's no way to prove the CC license is valid, except by proving you have a copyright on the work.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2011 @ 9:34am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @ "not always possible to tell if something infringes"
        If the developer won't develop the photos because they are 'too professional and must belong to someone else", how exactly is the photographer supposed to register the photos?
        
        Sent in the undeveloped film and claim the rights to the undeveloped work (which they then have no means to develop and use), I'm sure once they have registered the undeveloped film, the copyright office will send them their film back and then they can get the photos developed by claiming that they have filed for copyright on the undeveloped roll of film....
        
        I'm sure this is exactly the type of world we are headed for.... Can somebody stop this thing so I can get off? I've had enough of this ride, there has to be a better one somewhere.....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2011 @ 9:19am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: @ "not always possible to tell if something infringes"
        It's good to know that NO STUDIO PRODUCED movies are ever released into the public domain.
        
        Therefore any Studio produced movies 'on the internet' MUST BE INFRINGING AND MUST BE IMMEDIATELY REMOVED (this includes all sources, including things like hulu, Itv, studio websies and distribution sources).
        
        Once all STUDIO PRODUCED content has been removed from the internet, we can get down to having a rational discussion on why all the public domain content has disappeared forever...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Hephaestus (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 7:39am
    
    Re: Re:
    "The point is that it is not always possible to tell if something infringes."
    
    The current state of copyright is a total contradictory legal mess, that is weilded like a fire axe to stomp out any competition. With the exception of text only books, it is never possible to tell if something infringes on someones copyright. Even with a central registry of all written content, sound, video, and images, it is impossible to determine "ALL" the IP rights on any piece of music or video. When making a video a camera panning across, the picture in the window, the music playing, the huge 40 by 20 foot road side advertisement, the sports jersey being worn, the coke machine, hamburger wrapper, the chair a person is sitting on, all can get you sued because you failed to get the rights to them.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 7:45am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Hep, you are looking for an "all or nothing" solution, where as the reality is trying to push it from middle grey to perhaps a much darker grey.
      
      There is no absolute on anything. The real issue here is willful blindness, companies who have built their businesses up by specifically ignoring what they are doing, or playing dumb by saying "we don't actually host the content".
      
      There is no perfect solution. The current situation is so not perfect that it needs to be addressed.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 7:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What people don't comply with DMCA now?
        It is extremely abused and that is not enough you want more retarded laws to create even more abusive cases?
        
        Thanks but no thanks, that is it, go erode civil liberties elsewhere a-hole.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Hephaestus (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 8:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "The current situation is so not perfect that it needs to be addressed."
        
        You are correct in that the current situation needs to be addressed. Copyright and patents are about getting things into the public domain so that those works and inventions can be built upon. The public domain is supposed to be the rule and not the exception. Through lobbying the content industry has taken more and more out of the public domain.
        
        The ultimate goal of IP types seems to be a copyright of "forevery minus a day" which meets the "securing for limited Times" part of the copyright clause, but removes the "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" part.
        
        We all know that copyright length is being increased by increasing the length in one country, then bouncing to other nations and saying you have to standardize to their norm. Its a continual errosion of societies right to a health public domain.
        
        "The real issue here is willful blindness, companies who have built their businesses up by specifically ignoring what they are doing"
        
        The real issue here is surveillance and privacy, not willful blindness. If this was a real world situation, these file lockers would be safety deposit boxes. What the IP types want is the equivalent of asking a bank to open up boxes to search for illegal or infringing goods. Just because it is data, and is easy to automate, doesn't mean it should be allowed.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 8:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You are pretty much off on a rant. There is little that can be said to change your mind, so I won't bother.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 9:11am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        How was that a rant? Way to flee.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        lucidrenegade (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 9:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        At least he didn't call them a prick this time.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Hephaestus (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 10:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "At least he didn't call them a prick this time."
        
        I am a prick, so I wouldn't have disagreed ;)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Hephaestus (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 11:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "...Way to flee."
        
        I think he figured out I was the guy at the MPAA holloween ball dressed as the copyright clause ... ;)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Hephaestus (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 9:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "You are pretty much off on a rant."
        
        Talking about private companies doing surveillance on individuals and violating people privacy is a rant in your book. Good to know ...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 9:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If you ever thought you could change Hep's mind, you're somewhat disillusioned. Par for you.
        
        I take this to mean that there are points he made that are hitting too close to home for you and you're scared by it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 12:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        nah, Hep just changed the subject to what he wanted to talk about. It's what you guys always do.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 12:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Speaking about changing the subject . . .
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Doe, 4 Nov 2011 @ 6:42am
  
  Re:
  Do you really think 3rd party liability is good in any way for any reason? If we allow the government to apply 3rd party liability here, where will it end? Will Budweiser be sued out of existence because of drunk drivers? Will Smith & Wesson execs be put in jail as accessories to murder? Will you be held liable someday for something you didn't do?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 7:05am
    
    Re: Re:
    John, my feeling is that many of these sites that claim to be third parties are just first parties trying to hide under the service provider tent.
    
    Let's consider a magazine. They have a few people on staff to build the pages, perhaps to add an editorial comment or to write opinion columns. The rest they give out to freelance writers, who bang together articles for them. They assemble the magazine, place the advertisements and paid content around it, and sell it (or for that matter provide access to it online).
    
    Let's consider Youtube. They have a few people on staff who work on formatting the site, tracking user actions, preferences, etc. They even have a movie section they have crafted. The content is "user provided", and youtube bangs it together into a surfable format, sorting and organizing the content by name, type, ranking, popularity, and the like. They place the advertisements and paid content around it. They assemble the website, and provide access online.
    
    Now, the only difference in these two models really is that the magazine business runs more slowly (one edition every 20-22 days, so they can have a vacation at year end), and youtube happens very quickly. But they both make a choice of where they get the content, they both provide the layout and design, and they are both in the content business.
    
    Yet the magazine owner is liable for their content, and YouTube generally is not.
    
    It isn't a push to create third party liablity, as much as it is a push to recognize many of these companies are something other than innocent hosts.
    
    "Will Smith & Wesson execs be put in jail as accessories to murder? "
    
    I don't think that this is any part of the issue, but let me run with your analogy. If a Smith & Wesson exec was dispatched with every gun, showed you how to hold it, put the bullets in the gun, drove you to a location, told you who to murder, and helped you to hold the gun up and put their finger over the trigger and squeezed it with you... well, yeah, they would be liable - especially if they gave you the gun for free and paid you a commission on every dead body (can you say Filesonic?).
    
    The DMCA "service provider" provisions were way to narrowly interpreted, such that they created a whole "service provider safe harbor" business model. It is unrealistic to think that it would continue without some change.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - AJ (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 7:34am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "Now, the only difference in these two models really is that the magazine business runs more slowly (one edition every 20-22 days, so they can have a vacation at year end), and youtube happens very quickly. But they both make a choice of where they get the content, they both provide the layout and design, and they are both in the content business."
      
      A magazine has 10 to 40 pages, you tube has, I believe, 48 hours of video per second. I don't think your comparison scales very well.
      
      "But they both make a choice of where they get the content"
      
      So are you saying that only approved companies should be able to upload video to the internet? Because if websites become liable for user content, there will be no more websites with user created content. No one could afford to put eyes/ears on every audio/video/text file submitted. No more user created content = no more internet.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 7:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        AJ, are you suggesting that if enough people are murdered or enough people speed that the police should just give up? Scale is never an answer.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 8:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What are you suggesting that people should just accept a life + 95 years absurd monopoly and not complain?
        
        They should have laws that give power to censor others just by accusing them of some wrong doing and have no real consequences if they lie to do so claiming "it was a mistake"?
        
        You think people should just stop coyping what they bought just because you want them to?
        
        You want people to start beating their children so you can have your monopoly?
        Judge William Adams beats daughter for using the internet
        
        You want people to stop following the words of Jesus and stop sharing?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        AJ (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 8:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "AJ, are you suggesting that if enough people are murdered or enough people speed that the police should just give up? Scale is never an answer."
        
        No, I am not suggesting anyone should just "give up". I have a serious interest in seeing the content creators get paid. I love their work, and enjoy parting with my money when I feel I'm getting value.
        
        What I am saying however, is that this is not the way. Destroying the internet is not how you fix the problem. All that's going to do is scatter the problem all over the place, just like every other foot-on-throat solution ever presented. You need to fill the need these under served customers are filling themselves.
        
        Either give them what they want and figure out a way to make money in doing so, or step aside and let someone else do so. The gatekeeper model is no more. You are not going to bring it back with bad legislation.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 9:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        AJ, I don't see any of this as "destroying the internet", unless you think the internet should be an endless, bottomless buffet of everyone else's content without restriction, payment, or worries about rights. Then, yes, it mostly certainly will "hurt" the internet, because it is likely you won't be able to download pirated movies as easily, or find the music you love quite so quickly.
        
        However, it doesn't "destroy the internet" by any means. It does require a little more responsiblity, and requires companies that have hidden out as "service providers" to finally become responsible for what they are publishing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 9:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        This kills the Internet.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 12:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Maybe *your* internet. If so, good riddance.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        AJ (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 9:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "you won't be able to download pirated movies as easily, or find the music you love quite so quickly."
        
        LOL ! YOU REALLY DON'T GET IT! BAHAHAHAHA ..... !
        
        This bill won't impact your average pirate one bit! Not one fucking bit! Not even a little ! What this bill will do is shut down the legitimate alternatives to pirating! There are thousands of dark net and private tracker sites that will still host the tools to pirate. Instead of one big mole to whack, you now have thousands, and to make it worse the little bastards are almost impossible to see!
        
        Let me break it down for you. Want a movie? Rent the DVD and rip it, even the blue rays are a piece of cake to rip. Want some kind of music? There are so many free alternatives, that even if you shut down every tracker site in existence, your average kid can still listen to what they want for free. FOR FREE!
        
        What you wont have are online locker/cloud services to store your legal files, communities including user created fan sites that make your products more valuable, and unlimited access to millions of people who would gladly pay for content if it has value.
        
        You want to commit financial suicide, go ahead, but don't act like it's because of pirates. You are trying to protect a legacy model because your simply scared of change.
        
        Good luck with that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 12:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I don't think anyone is suggesting that dedicated psychopaths like yourselves won't find a way to rip artists off, but if you don't think blocking Demonoid, etc won't have an impact, then you're just lying to yourself.
        
        Even the ISPs have said piracy dropped after Limewire got shut down.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 12:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You are right people just create another layer that is harder.
        
        The OSI already has nine what is one more.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 10:00am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "...you won't be able to download pirated movies as easily, or find the music you love quite so quickly...."
        
        You don't really think that, do you? Just wrong I say. Case in point: Rojadirecta. ICE seized their domain name; the site remains accessible via its IP. Update your bookmark and carry on.
        
        The people who still wanted to get there absolutely could.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Groove Tiger (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 9:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "AJ, are you suggesting that if enough people are murdered or enough people speed that the police should just give up?"
        
        Please stop being a prick.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Franklin G Ryzzo (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 3:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        These are two totally different examples, and one is bad, and one is actually surprisingly good...
        
        Murder deprives someone of something... namely their life. This is a nonsensical comparison, so we'll just forget you mentioned it.
        
        On the other hand, people speeding is pretty decent comparison, although it goes against your point. The police have a good understanding that many many people speed. Speed limits were put in place for the purpose of revenue generation. The police recognize that they can't catch every speeder because that would mean almost everyone on every road everywhere at some point in time. When a group of cars is speeding and there is only one officer, he has to choose one of the group and issue a citation. Again, this is not about safety, it's about revenue generation. The ticket is issued, the state makes some money, people who see the ticketing officer slow down momentarily and then speed back up as soon as he's out of site, and life goes on. So in a way, they have accepted the fact that people speed and that they can't catch them all. Ive actually heard judges say this exact same thing in court when some tries the "but everyone else was speeding so why me" defense.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The Logician (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 7:35am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You cannot base the enforcement of law merely on intuition and feeling, AC 25. You must have empirical evidence obtained through the normal channels of due process, and you must respect the concept of innocent until proven guilty. Guilt based upon accusation is not justice, but rather a witch hunt. As much as you wish to bypass the safeguards put in place by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, it is unethical to do so for any reason. Furthermore, where would you have the line of liability end? The third party? Fourth? Fifth? Sixth? Seventh? Exactly how far are you willing to stretch this concept in order to accomplish your goal of preserving outdated business models and corporate profits at the expense of civil rights?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 7:44am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I don't think that this is any part of the issue, but let me run with your analogy. If a Smith & Wesson exec was dispatched with every gun, showed you how to hold it, put the bullets in the gun, drove you to a location, told you who to murder, and helped you to hold the gun up and put their finger over the trigger and squeezed it with you... well, yeah, they would be liable
      
      So Filesonic sends out a person to show you how to click your mouse, rip a DVD, and then murders someone? That's kind of awesome. I'm signing up for this service now.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 7:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Please stop being a prick.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 7:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You first please.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Groove Tiger (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 9:22am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Please stop being a prick" is the new bulletproof rebuttal phrase of the week, it seems.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 8:09am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Are labels liable for their artists too?
      Are studios liable for their actors and directors?
      
      Did people stopped doing business with Roman Polanski the paedophile?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Doe, 4 Nov 2011 @ 8:13am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Yet the magazine owner is liable for their content, and YouTube generally is not.
      
      You point out the fatal flaw in your logic right there. The magazine is paying people to produce their content so they are 1st party. YouTube allows people to publish their own content so YouTube is 3rd party.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 12:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Good luck hiding behind that forever. :)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - MrWilson, 4 Nov 2011 @ 9:14am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "my feeling is that many of these sites that claim to be third parties are just first parties trying to hide under the service provider tent."
      
      I don't know about you, but my feelings certainly don't qualify as evidence in a court of law. Come back with some proof that would stand up to scrutiny and we can start discussing the point.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 6:43am
  
  Re:
  Are you dumb? what you just said was the DMCA is not changing its being superseeded by a new law that will overule it.
  
  So yah it won't change the DMCA it will just pass over it.
  
  The thing you don't seem to get is that that kind of liability is just stupid, are you going to be responsible for what your clients do?
  
  How about labels be responsible for what their artists and customers do?
  
  Does that sounds remotely sane to you?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 6:47am
  
  Re:
  If you really want to stop criminal behaviour lets make labels responsible for the criminal acts of their artists and business partners, sure you are against crime aren't you?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 6:49am
  
  Re:
  When an artists comits a crime he should have all his copyrights seized by the government, his bank accounts frozen, his credit providers must end business with said artist and if labels don't comply they should face liabilities too and be responsible criminaly for what they did.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 6:53am
  
  Re:
  Lets create a black list for criminal artists too, so any artists accused of being a criminal should have all their assets seized, financial institutions should be forced not to do business with said criminals and if labels fail to do so they should also face liabilities civil and criminal.
  
  That is how stupid this proposed law sounds.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 6:55am
  
  Re:
  You should also be liable if you don't report or do business with any criminal you should be held responsible for everything he did.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Killer_Tofu (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 6:57am
  
  Re:
  except that the definition of service provider liablity [sic] will change to reflect the reality of the internet.
  
  Here's a thought, since the service providers do reflect the reality of the internet, how about the RIAA members, MPAA members, etc, actually change themselves to reflect the reality of reality. Times have changed. Customer's expectations have changed. If those groups and corporations cannot compete in today's markets, then they need to go out of business. That is how it should be. Stop trying to shut down all of the ways that independent artists use to promote their works just because your group is too stupid to just look at how useful they are.
  Laziness is no excuse to pass bad laws just because you hate competition. Deal with it. Adapt or die.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 7:11am
    
    Re: Re:
    I appreciate your thoughts, even though I can't say I agree with your ideas at all.
    
    Why should a copyright holder have to change to allow a "service provider" to have a free lunch?
    
    "Stop trying to shut down all of the ways that independent artists use to promote their works just because your group is too stupid to just look at how useful they are."
    
    First off, it's not "my group", so please get over that.
    
    Second, nobody is stopping you from doing anything. You want to promote via file lockers, you tube, blogs, whatever, you are more than free to do it. In fact, I would encourage it. I think it is wonderful.
    
    What is not wonderful is forcing another group to have to give up their business models and do it your way, without a choice. Don't you think that content creators and owners should have the choice how their product is promoted? Should they not have the right to say "we don't want to be on youtube" and walk away? Perhaps they are cavemen for not wanting to do it, but isn't it their right?
    
    You seem to think that you can make others do it your way because it is "better". That just isn't the case.
    
    Oh, and take your own advice - stay on topic.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 7:16am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      If only the government provided a way for the public to obtain licenses easily. Or some sort of copyright registration for the content creators and owners.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 7:23am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      WE are not forcing you to change the market is forcing you to change. You remind me of the people who used to deliver ice to houses. That decried the invention of the freezer! They too started a large campaign to save their way of life. We all know how that worked out.
      
      They probably even said "Think of the Children"
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 7:23am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Why shouldn't copyright holders have to change because of market changes?
      
      How can you say nobody is trying to stop anybody from doing something when the entire objective of the law is exactly that, but it doesn't affect only bad behaviour it also affects legal ones, it give excessive power to very few people and have no real safeguards to counter what undoubtedly will happen and that is abuse of that system just like the DMCA is being abused right now.
      
      Now anyone streaming anything can be a criminal, well guess what, millions streams things daily, and some idiot is about to get the power to label anybody a criminal and have them being harassed by law enforcement that doesn't seem right at all.
      
      Between content creators rights and due process and free speech, I side with the later, the former can find something to do that doesn't involve creating absurd laws that would give them even more power.
      
      life + 95 years is not enough a monopoly?
      Absolute control over commercial distribution is not enough?
      Ford could only dream with such a power, if they only could force cab drivers to pay them again and again and again.
      
      The real criminals are content creators pushing for such things.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 7:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "life + 95 years is not enough a monopoly?
        Absolute control over commercial distribution is not enough?
        Ford could only dream with such a power, if they only could force cab drivers to pay them again and again and again.
        
        The real criminals are content creators pushing for such things."
        
        Wow, how do I start? First, there is no monopoly. Where do you get that? Is there only one song, only one band, only one distribution method, one one radio station playing that one song? Nope. No monopoly. However, copyright does grant the creator (and those he assigns those rights to) the right to control how that particular song is used, within the limits of the law. But no, there is no monopoly, sorry.
        
        Absolute control? If there was such a thing, there would be no need for the new laws. Clearly, there is a loss of control, a loss of rights which has to be addressed.
        
        Ford could have had that dream, if he had chosen to rent the cars instead of selling them outright. Different business models for different types of goods does not mean that one model is right for all, nor is one model wrong for all.
        
        Really, if you are going to argue a point, try to do it without just parroting the crap you have heard and don't really understand.
        
        The market can change. Those who choose not to change with it either die, adapt, or keep going regardless. You cannot force anyone to change if they don't want to - and their lack of change doesn't give you the right to pirate their stuff. Sorry!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 7:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        First copyright is a granted monopoly stupid, there is no way around that simple fact.
        
        If there where no monopoly the fraking artist wouldn't be able to complain that somebody stole his precious IP BS just like restaurants can't do nothing if another restaurant steal their recipes or if one fashion guy copies another, so yes there is a monopoly and though that monopoly some musicians and stop other musicians from playing the same song, or put them out of a job allowing others to do it on their behalf threatening establishments that play some song.
        
        More in no other part of society anybody is allowed to dictate to others what others can do after they bought something from you, so if a bought a song and wanted it to play it in my bar that should be fine, just like if I bought a car and Ford couldn't stop me from using that car to make money, so the ability that artists has to stop others from doing that is just disgusting.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Logician (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 7:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Your assertion, AC 44, is incorrect. The monopoly is on the particular piece of content and its distribution. That is what must not be allowed to last any longer than is necessary, and two centuries of such control is far longer than is needed. The kind of control you seek is impossible and can never be restored. What you see as a loss of rights is, in fact, the public asserting their own right to their common culture. Which, I might add, outweighs the need for copyright many times over. Also, your incorrect use of the inaccurate term "pirate" is also flawed. People will do what they will in regards to obtaining content and culture, and it cannot be stopped. What you must learn is how to adapt and accept it and use it to your advantage. This is the new reality, one that cannot be avoided or suppressed. You would have as much chance of success at attempting to empty the ocean with a spoon.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 7:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Quote:
        The market can change. Those who choose not to change with it either die, adapt, or keep going regardless. You cannot force anyone to change if they don't want to - and their lack of change doesn't give you the right to pirate their stuff. Sorry!
        
        You be wrong, at the end of the day is about numbers and force, you don't have the numbers nor the strength to force anything, the people on the other hand can just ignore you and your rights and they will be fine.
        
        Business on the other hand will suffer.
        
        Artists should not have a monopoly on songs they wrote, they should have to compete with others, so the guy on the streets could play the song for pennies, the guy in the bar would give musicians a place to play and get paid and you a-hole would try and peddle merch to others without being able to stop me or anybody from doing the exact same thing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Groove Tiger (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 9:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Really, if you are going to argue a point, try to do it without just parroting the crap you have heard and don't really understand."
        
        Please stop being a prick.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Killer_Tofu (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 8:15am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I am glad you appreciate the thoughts. =)
      
      Second, nobody is stopping you from doing anything. You want to promote via file lockers, you tube, blogs, whatever, you are more than free to do it. In fact, I would encourage it. I think it is wonderful.
      
      Plenty of new age artists who understand the internet use all of the tools and services that the E-Parasites/SOPA will shut down. To think that the artists should be able to use these is wonderful to hear. I am glad you support artists too. However, we have to be realistic about how this bill will be used. It will undoubtedly be used to force services and tools offline that are currently doing great for artists because of a few middlemen who refuse to use them. If you are truly for the artists, all of them, and not just a few working for the large corps, then you should also be against SOPA. The bill, in whatever form, is very anti free market because it attempts to help remove tools and services used by new and potentially great artists. As much as I dislike the guy, Justin Bieber seems to be famous for some reason, and without YouTube he would likely have never become famous, and if these types of bills existed 10 years ago, YouTube would have never become so big.
      
      Even back in the Sony / Betamax case with the Supreme Court, the SCOTUS said that content companies should not be able to determine the course of technology because some people will use it for copyright infringement. SOPA attempts to turn this insightful decision on its head and give those slow to adapt companies control over the future of technology that new and upcoming artists love and want to use.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 9:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Plenty of new age artists who understand the internet use all of the tools and services that the E-Parasites/SOPA will shut down"
        
        It comes to the simple problem: If those sites cannot operate legally, they will be replaced with business models and sites that are legal.
        
        Example, a file locker site that requires your ID to open an account, and holds you liable for everything in your account. Where the file locker company doesn't charge people for access to your materials, but rather charges you for use of the locker. You know, actual hosting.
        
        It doesn't kill legal services. It kills those who seek to profit from illegally obtained content.
        
        Artists would be smart to start their own services, perhaps grouped together, based on the idea of knowing who you are working with.
        
        "ven back in the Sony / Betamax case with the Supreme Court, the SCOTUS said that content companies should not be able to determine the course of technology because some people will use it for copyright infringement. SOPA attempts to turn this insightful decision on its head and give those slow to adapt companies control over the future of technology that new and upcoming artists love and want to use."
        
        No, it only starts to try to hold online companies to the same standards as offline companies. Can you imagine someone going into a Gamestop with a bunch of burned discs wrapped in a photocopy of the game box, and trying to pass them off as "real" and demanding they take them in trade? It wouldn't work, so why should you be able to do it online?
        
        Know your customer... it's rule 1 for any business.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dave, 4 Nov 2011 @ 11:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It doesn't kill legal services. It kills those who seek to profit from illegally obtained content.
        
        It doesn't kill legal services. It just makes services that are legal now, illegal. If you don't like a service, just buy a law that lets you kill it!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 11:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "It comes to the simple problem: If those sites cannot operate legally, they will be replaced with business models and sites that are legal."
        
        doubtfull have been some year like 10 or so and we only have a few legal alternatives so using this pseudo law wont help to make more legal alternatives it will try to stop them and try to make people go back to the cd era
        
        "Example, a file locker site that requires your ID to open an account, and holds you liable for everything in your account."
        quite imposible because you can get an id number or fictional id unles you conect it to escan if is a valid one
        " Where the file locker company doesn't charge people for access to your materials, but rather charges you for use of the locker. You know, actual hosting."
        i think the lockers charge you to use their loker and gives a free space to convice the non-suscriber to suscribe is like the hbo moviecity channels that open their channel as a gift or in special days
        
        "Artists would be smart to start their own services, perhaps grouped together, based on the idea of knowing who you are working with"
        i talked to a friend that is an astist and told him about making a site to rpomote his pictures and he told me lots of ideas he has and every idea was that he wanted to either make the people pay suscribe or lock download of their scaned drawing and i was like ok you know i can make what you want, but you know i can break those those locks easily if i feel like it and anyone who relly feels like can do it or simply as the average joe will go to a site that has a cooler o equal picture and download, and also told him that what he prefered being known or not known he told me being known
        
        "No, it only starts to try to hold online companies to the same standards as offline companies. Can you imagine someone going into a Gamestop with a bunch of burned discs wrapped in a photocopy of the game box, and trying to pass them off as "real" and demanding they take them in trade? It wouldn't work, so why should you be able to do it online?"
        thats quite simple to answer and si because in virtual world every copy is original unless you crack it or make somthing direfernt to the code
        
        "Know your customer... it's rule 1 for any business."
        
        cool because the mpaa and riaa need to learn it they dont even know what their custoemr wants :)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 11:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Example, a file locker site that requires your ID to open an account, and holds you liable for everything in your account"
        
        But it doesn't matter. There is no trial so whoever feels they've been slighted can just shut the site down anyways. Doesn't matter what's in the TOS.
        
        "Artists would be smart to start their own services, perhaps grouped together, based on the idea of knowing who you are working with."
        
        You have any idea how fast that would be shut down? When one artist can sue and win over 6 notes, no music site will ever survive.
        
        "Can you imagine someone going into a Gamestop with a bunch of burned discs wrapped in a photocopy of the game box, and trying to pass them off as "real" and demanding they take them in trade?"
        
        Two possible outcomes to that. One, the copies are obvious fakes, and GameStop is out money for being dumb enough to buy them. They are not liable. Two, the copies are good fakes and would fool any reasonable person. GameStop is still not liable.
        
        Now, what if you went to GameStop and purchased these reasonable fakes? According to you and this law, you are now guilty of copyright infringement as well as GameStop and subject to all your assets being frozen. You had no idea, but hay, that's the law.
        
        "Know your customer... it's rule 1 for any business."
        
        It's rule 1 for any failing business. Imagine if you had to provide your identity every single time you walked into Walmart on the off chance you may shop lift. Walmart would be dead inside a week. Now extend that to all stores. Bye, bye industrial age, hello agrarian society (though Monsanto will probably screw that up).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- cnyk, 4 Nov 2011 @ 8:39am
  
  Re:
  So lemme get this straight: under this E-NASTY/BACTERIA act, if I hate youtube all I have to do is put a video of Metallica on it (you know why I chose this particular band), and just wait for Lars Ulrich to complain. That's it! No more youtube, because *I* posted a video.
  
  Restating it so you get the meaning of the above: this is why youtube _is_ a service provider. It's not serving acquired or self made content. It's just *providing* _me_ with *the service* of being able to share _my_ content with the world.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Fushta (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 12:01pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Also, say goodbye to Facebook. I cannot count how many infringing photos I've seen on peoples' photo galleries. Facebook better get going now, so by the time this bill is in effect, they won't be hosting infringing photos anymore.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 9:02am
  
  Re:
  The problem lies in allowing too many types of sites to be services providers, and as a result, their situation becomes less and less comfortable.
  
  No, the problem comes in trying to enforce laws that make no sense in the modern world.
  
  This cannot be resolved except by shutting down the internet or shutting down copyright. There is no middle ground here.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Josef Anvil (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 6:36am

Just plain wrong
Mike, you got it wrong AGAIN. This bill IS narrowly drafted. It is ONLY targeting the entire INTERNET. Its has nothing to do with Unemployment, Abortion, or Gay Marriage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 9:21am
  
  Re: Just plain wrong
  Wrong! its targeting US portion of Internet.
  The fact master DNS server are at the US zone, that can be changed.
  
  "We are the best americans in the world"
  George Bush
  
  yeaahh sure
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Franklin G Ryzzo (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 3:50pm
  
  Re: Just plain wrong
  Actually, with all of the startups that could be snuffed out before they get on their feet by large players trying to avoid competition, yeah, I think it takes a pro-abortion stance.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 6:37am

The mainstream press is just as clueless about it as the politicians that will vote it into law. Most Baby Boomers and above have no idea what the Internet is except that it's something their kids use. The sad thing is that it will remain this way until we relegate them into old folks homes and get Gen X'ers into a position of power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
anonymous, 4 Nov 2011 @ 6:39am

makes no difference who says what about the bill and however much truth or lies is told, it's gonna get passed. the entertainment industries have thrown too much money at the politicains, law makers and security agencies and too much of that money has been accepted to not allow it to pass. the ordinary people that are supposed to be represented dont matter any more. once the 'net goes right down the crapper, then we will see the damage done. whether that damage can be repaired, i doubt it. will those that voted for the bill admit it? of course not! will there be any change to the bill then? of course not! will there be any accusations flung about? of course there will! will it make a shits worth of difference? of course not!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Killer_Tofu (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 6:40am

Rules for ACs
Dear random ACs who disagree with Mike, will you please:

A) Stay on topic

B) Refrain from shoot the messenger behavior when it has absolutely nothing to do with this article and you've already tried it 50 million times. 'Calling Mike out' just makes you look incredibly desperate. This goes doubly so for when it is just a baseless accusation.

C) Use intelligent thought and actually consider the other side's opinion for once. Logic is encouraged at this step.

D) Consider history, and by this I mean a good review of past government abuses of badly written laws (See: computer fraud and abuse type acts with regards to 'hacking' and 'unauthorized access'). Also, consider the groups who Claim to support artists own history (See: number of complaints on CreativeAmerica about people feeling they were duped into signing, see also: number of times artists have shown that the labels refuse them payments on just about any residuals ever)

E) If you make great claims, actually include links to back yourself up.

F) Once somebody responds with lots of links and facts, don't run away.

Thank you, come again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rich, 4 Nov 2011 @ 7:01am
  
  Re: Rules for ACs
  It were possible, this is one comment that should be "pinned."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 7:07am
  
  Re: Rules for ACs
  Welcome to free speech. Here is my middle finger. I will do it however I want, and it you don't like it, too bad. Are you suggesting I should have less rights than you?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Butcherer79 (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 7:27am
    
    Re: Re: Rules for ACs
    Less rights, no,
    Less intelligence, maybe, but it is a pain to filter through the crap that gets spouted.
    
    I do like the irony, however, of mentioning your rights to free speech whilst trying to inhibit others by being incredibly pro E-PARASITE/SOPA.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - out_of_the_blue, 4 Nov 2011 @ 7:40am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Rules for ACs
      @Butcherer79 (profile), Nov 4th, 2011 @ 7:27am
      
      I do like the irony, however, of mentioning your rights to free speech whilst trying to inhibit others by being incredibly pro E-PARASITE/SOPA.
      
      --------------------------
      
      I don't care for the dishonesty of casting removing infringing content as violating free speech. You can have concerns about that at the margins, but fact is, freetards assert that they should be able to post links to /obviously/ infringing copyrighted material, and to have file hosts deliver it. A symbiosis of "third parties" that result in infringement can't logically exist -- so long as copyright is in effect -- and the sum of links sites plus "safe harbor" in irresponsible hosts just isn't going to be tolerated by moneyed interests. -- I don't believe that it should, either, from a moral view: those who PAID to produce the content should have pretty clear entitlement to distribute it however they choose, even if you believe that to be wrong, and the producers should also have reasonable rules and reasonable gov't action to prevent the present DODGES around copyright.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 7:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Rules for ACs
        Nobody cares about the copytards either is not the world wonderful?
        
        Now there is nothing reasonable about giving a-holes like you any power, it will be abused, we all know it, we all saw it happen before and will happen again, any power given to a-holes will be abused because that is what you people do.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Butcherer79 (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 8:06am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Rules for ACs
        "I don't care for the dishonesty of casting removing infringing content as violating free speech."
        
        It's not just the removal of infringing content that is covered here, is it?
        I've quoted it below but I'll put it here too for your delectation:
        In the first quote of the above story, whole domains blocked for one site infringing:
        "But another big worry is that blocking the domain name for one infringing site (say, latviablogging.com/counterfeitrolexes) could prevent access to thousands of innocent ones also hosted under that domain (like latviablogging.com/motherscookierecipes). "
        
        Clearly demonstrating how free speech can and will be impeded under E-PARASITE/SOPA.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 10:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Rules for ACs
        but but think of the network food programs, i mean if the blogs gives the recipe who is going to watch those programs :P
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Dark Helmet (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 8:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Rules for ACs
        "I don't care for the dishonesty of casting removing infringing content as violating free speech."
        
        That's disengenous. No one here is decrying the removal of infringing content. The problem is all the non-infringing collateral damage a bill like this is going to do.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 10:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Rules for ACs
        My beef is the whole idea of what you guys consider 'infringing content'.
        
        In 2004, I paid money to go on a vacation cruise to the Bahamas. One of the stops along the way was a private island owned by the cruise company.
        
        This island was set up nice: beach side chairs, shops, walking trail, food, alcohol, beautiful view of the ocean.
        
        Of course there was music was playing in the background. The license for the music was paid for by the cruise ship company, so the artist got paid. (mind you this was not even on US soil at this point.)
        
        I wanted to capture this moment, to relive it, since it was my first cruise ever, and may be my last.
        
        I sat at one of the tables, plopped down my digital camera, and pressed record.
        
        After I got home, I uploaded it to youtube, to show my family, and friends, since most of them had never been on a cruise. Mind you, I do not have my youtube account set up for 'making money from ads'. My youtube account is only for sharing my life experiences with my family and friends that are far away.
        
        4 years later, I received a notice from youtube that Sony was claiming copyright over my video, because of the music playing in the background. Music that the artist had already been paid for, by the cruse ship company.
        
        I have no problem with Sony wanting to ask nicely 'oh hay, your video has this artist playing, can we put a link to where you can buy the music on your youtube page?'. That's not what they did. They swooped in, and took my copyright on my video and left me no course of action.
        
        That is why we are pushing back. That is why we are giving Big Media the finger.
        
        That is why I never listen to the radio, watch TV, or go to the movies.
        
        The greed is gonna kill you guys off eventually.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 12:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Rules for ACs
        If the music was so loud that You Tube's filters flagged it, sounds like it was a less than chilled out environment.
        
        Nonetheless, nothing prevents you from putting it up on a private channel or simply emailing it to friends.
        
        You don't give a goddamn about how badly I've been ripped off as an artist, so I sure as fuck don't give a shit about your stupid fucking cruise video not being able to be on goddamn youtube.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 12:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Rules for ACs
        What's interesting is that at no point in his comment did he say he doesn't care about artists being ripped off.
        
        Unless of course you're spinning the following into what you want it to mean:
        
        "I have no problem with Sony wanting to ask nicely 'oh hay, your video has this artist playing, can we put a link to where you can buy the music on your youtube page?'. That's not what they did. They swooped in, and took my copyright on my video and left me no course of action.
        
        That is why we are pushing back. That is why we are giving Big Media the finger.
        
        That is why I never listen to the radio, watch TV, or go to the movies.
        
        The greed is gonna kill you guys off eventually."
        
        Where in any of that did he say he doesn't care about artists being ripped off? Because I can't find it. Nor any implication of that.
        
        My guess is, you're probably not an artists, and if you are, you may have failed in general. Not necessarily because of file sharing/piracy. But those make convenient scapegoats. It's easier to point the finger at the boogeymen (downloaders) than say "maybe I suck as a musician", "maybe I made bad business decisions", "maybe I should've paid more attention and hired a lawyer before I signed any deals", etc.
        
        That or possibly, just possibly, people were like "this guy's a total d*ck" (basing that off your rather angry essentially "f*ck you" comment to the guy above and assuming that's how you are in general) so let's just not buy his stuff. He doesn't deserve our money with an attitude like that.
        
        Because the way you are towards others is how they'll be towards you.
        
        I write, more for fun than profit, but I make a few bucks doing it (which is all gravy as far as I'm concerned, since I have a 9-5 job I enjoy working, and writing to me is just fun in general and I enjoy doing it, no pay required). If people say to me "hey can you write something like etc etc" I can then and there whip something up and more often than not amaze them with how creative and imaginative I am. I'll joke with them, converse with them, etc. And if I'm in public (and usually I am doing this at a bar, cause I like to drink and then go home and write) they'll say something like "hey, that's awesome, thanks, let me buy you a beer or something" and I'll say "sure go for it". A positive not grouchy attitude works wonders with your fanbase/customers.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 1:13pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Rules for ACs
        "...simply emailing it to friends"
        
        Yea, there's this thing called file size limits.....but hey, no worries...I know it's hard for 'big city' people to understand (spend some time in Southwest Missouri, outside of Springfield to get an idea.....)
        
        You are cussing at the wrong person. I didn't rip you off:
        
        http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111104/04202416631/fight-power-chuck-d-sues-universal-mus ic-hundreds-millions-unpaid-royalties.shtml
        
        I have never had a problem with artists. I have purchased many a CD from independent artists, as well as shirts, concert tickets etc.
        
        I do have a problem with the people between the artists and the end user. THOSE are the greedy f'ers. If you are an artist, you should be just as pissed as we are at Big Media and Big Content.
        
        (I think I am a little surprised at the tone towards me. Below people asked to give examples of Free Speech, and I did. That entire scenario is one example of copyright zealots gone wrong, and how these laws can be abused. If you don't want to watch my video, you don't have to. It wasn't meant for you. However, the greed of wanting to get paid for something that you have already been paid for combined with trying to take a totally non commercial video and call it commercial and then criminalize it......that's a problem, and it will be opposed.)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 1:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Rules for ACs
        Let's take this example one step further.
        
        So the cruise line is clearly paying yearly fees for playing the music on the island, or they would be in big trouble (for good reason.).
        
        My video, of my experience, that happens to have the music in the background, is...
        
        1. not generating revenue for me
        2. is free advertising for the artist
        3. is free advertising for the cruise line
        
        However, if we continue down the path of 'slicing the paying customers throat to chase a penny'....
        
        I will stop using the cruise line if they continue to use that music.
        
        I will not direct any of my money to the 'big music company' for any of their products.
        
        I will tell everyone what a bunch of scum bags they were....
        
        I will stop using that cruise line, and will tell them it's because of their music....
        
        Hopefully....
        
        The cruise line will get enough complaints that they decide that the licenses they pay for being able to play the music from that 'big music company' are not worth it, because they lost so many customers, and they drop playing that music on the island, and pick up and pay an artist that provides a better value that won't go chasing after people and stealing their non commercial videos.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Franklin G Ryzzo (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 4:00pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Rules for ACs
        You mad, bro?
        
        Why don't you explain to us how you've been ripped off as an artist? Tell the story and maybe you'll get some supporters. This is an honest request. Tell the story instead of just flipping out on a guy who clearly got screwed. Maybe you have more in common than you you realize...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Richard (profile), 5 Nov 2011 @ 4:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Rules for ACs
        You don't give a goddamn about how badly I've been ripped off as an artist,
        
        You haven't been ripped off- the belief that you have is a way of explaining your own failure to yourself.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2011 @ 3:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Rules for ACs
        Gotta agree with Richard here. I'm also an aspiring musician myself...if you failed, it's either because A) you truly suck at playing your instrument and had no business trying to make a career out of it or B) You were actually pretty good on your instrument, but never bothered to learn how to run a business or what the word professionalism means...so many idiots in my classes are like this, and it's going to be quite amusing watching them blame piracy on their failure just as you are doing now.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 7:49am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Rules for ACs
      Butcher, please: Tell us how these laws would inhibit you personally in your free speech,with your original content.
      
      Just so you understand, stopping you from putting a DVD rip into a file locker so your friends can download it isn't free speech.
      
      Putting up a rar file with your 100 favorite songs on it so people can download it isn't free speech.
      
      So exactly how are your personal free speech rights limited? Examples please!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 7:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Rules for ACs
        Falsely claiming copyright over works is though and can be used to close down just about anything since there is no punishment in the fraking proposal for "mistakes" made is there? nothing bad happens if due diligence is not followed.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 8:00am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Rules for ACs
        Lets make a law that make you responsible for anyone who do business with you, now you are responsible for knowing what they do and if you can't that is not the problem with the law its yours.
        
        Lets make the labels responsible for murders that rap musicians commit, they should have known those people are thugs and criminals right?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Butcherer79 (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 8:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Rules for ACs
        In the first quote of the above story, whole domains blocked for one site infringing:
        "But another big worry is that blocking the domain name for one infringing site (say, latviablogging.com/counterfeitrolexes) could prevent access to thousands of innocent ones also hosted under that domain (like latviablogging.com/motherscookierecipes). "
        
        That's example one, clearly demonstrating how free speech can and will be impeded under E-PARASITE/SOPA. I can link to plenty more when I can be bothered to, if this is not enough for you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Eileen (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 8:07am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Rules for ACs
        Because you are so WILLFULLY STUPID and blind, I will help you out, AC.
        
        Imagine you run a blog. It criticizes the government and supports peaceful protests and civil disobedience. This irritates certain people in power, and suddenly you are accused of being an "infringing website". You aren't, of course, but your ISP can't afford to waste time trying to find out and your blog is shut down. Maybe some idiot commenter put an "infringing link" in a comment somewhere, maybe not. It hardly matters. You're now faced with legal battle to get your blog back. Except, you're neither an attorny nor rich. So you just give up. Free speech effectively neutralized.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 8:27am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Rules for ACs
        See right there is why nobody will ever respect copyright.
        You want to make human nature something criminal to fit your world view just like this judge tried to put the fear of God in his daughter.
        Judge William Adams beats daughter for using the internet
        
        He failed, at some point people will make you pay dearly.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 11:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Rules for ACs
        *points up*
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 7:36am
    
    Re: Re: Rules for ACs
    He's just giving sound advice on how to be taken seriously and not ignored. Of course you're perfectly entitled to pay no attention to that favour.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Killer_Tofu (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 7:58am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Rules for ACs
      I would reply to the AC directly about how I am not advocating he has less rights at all. But other than that, this AC to which I am replying said the other half of what I would say very well.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Rich, 4 Nov 2011 @ 7:45am
    
    Re: Re: Rules for ACs
    Free speech laws protect us from Government, not either other. Besides, his point is your "middle finger" adds nothing to the conversation. Welcome to the adult world.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Groove Tiger (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 9:23am
    
    Re: Re: Rules for ACs
    "Welcome to free speech. Here is my middle finger. I will do it however I want, and it you don't like it, too bad. Are you suggesting I should have less rights than you?"
    
    Please stop being a prick.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Butcherer79 (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 12:27pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Rules for ACs
      "Please stop being a prick."
      
      Loving these posts by the way... It's important to remember humour when you're reading what someone else considers serious :-)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- martyburns (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 7:10am
  
  Re: Rules for ACs
  F eel free to comment but stay on topic.
  
  E rroneously shooting the messenger when it has absolutely nothing to do with the article does not make you look intelligent. 'Calling Mike out' just makes you look incredibly desperate. This goes doubly so for when it is just a baseless accusation.
  
  D o use intelligent thought and actually consider the other side's opinion for once. Logic is encouraged at this step.
  
  U nderstand history, and by this I mean a good review of past government abuses of badly written laws (See: computer fraud and abuse type acts with regards to 'hacking' and 'unauthorized access'). Also, consider the groups who Claim to support artists own history (See: number of complaints on CreativeAmerica about people feeling they were duped into signing, see also: number of times artists have shown that the labels refuse them payments on just about any residuals ever)
  
  P rovide links when you make great claims, in order to back yourself up.
  
  ! Dont be shocked when somebody responds with lots of links and facts and PLEASE don't run away. We we encourage genuine debate and would like to try and understand your point of view.
  
  Thank you, come again.
  
  FTFY :-)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Killer_Tofu (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 7:55am
    
    Re: Re: Rules for ACs
    Haha. I like the rewrite, and being fed up is part of why I tried to head off some of the craziness we have seen lately.
    
    Article about SOPA.
    AC Response "Ohmigawd Mike is a lobbist!?!?!?!"
    It was just getting very old very quick.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- MonkeyFracasJr (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 8:23am
  
  Re: Rules for [ACs] Everyone
  "A) Stay on topic"
  
  I know part of the dissenter's role is to disrupt the conversation with misdirection and false leads, to avoid a frank discussion of the real topic. However I am frustrated by commenters who try to actually follow those leads to attempt to debunk them. Don't fall for it. I usually enjoy reading the discussions, and sometimes even the misguided threads are entertaining. But all to often I find myself frustrated again because what is being discussed is not the issue at hand. Even the people who side with Mike's opinions often make the wrong arguments.
  
  Whether the content industry is right or wrong with their lobbyist based business tactics is NOT the issue. The issue is the trampling and destruction of the people's civil liberties, the apparent abandonment of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. That is what is APPALLING, that is what we must not allow. Yet rarely is that the argument I read here.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Killer_Tofu (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 9:10am
    
    Re: Re: Rules for [ACs] Everyone
    This is true, and I know that I am sometimes guilty of this as well.
    
    In one respect, we sometimes fight the arguments they make for the trampling of rights with other facts and examples and show why the reasons they want to get a law passed are false. It is in a way fighting their attempts at violating civil liberties, but without using the words.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 7:00am

"There are lots of concerns here, including the amount of discretion it hands to the attorney general. But another big worry is that blocking the domain name for one infringing site (say, latviablogging.com/counterfeitrolexes) could prevent access to thousands of innocent ones also hosted under that domain (like latviablogging.com/motherscookierecipes). "

SOPA provides for subdomain blocking, PROTECT IP does not. Like the SF Chronicle reporter the FUD-meisters here need to read the bill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rich, 4 Nov 2011 @ 7:03am
  
  Re:
  Um, you can have servers (and MANY do) that do not separate websites into subdomains. That's the how point!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Rich, 4 Nov 2011 @ 7:04am
    
    Re: Re:
    s/how/whole/
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 8:00am
  
  Re:
  Way to go sherlock, but a subdirectory is not a subdomain.
  
  Care to try again?
  
  (Jsut so I am clear, the author from the SF Chronicle was calling attention to domains being blocked with individual blogs in subdirectories, not individual blogs in subdomains. You fail.)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jamie, 4 Nov 2011 @ 7:20pm
  
  Response to: Anonymous Coward on Nov 4th, 2011 @ 7:00am
  " SOPA provides for subdomain blocking, PROTECT IP does not."
  
  Which helps to limit collateral damage, so long as a site with user-generated content uses subdomains. For those of you who aren't sure, a subdomain is an extra part of the site address that goes straight after the http:// part. For example, http://someone.example.com/ is a subdomain of http://example.com/ but http://example.com/someone/ is not.
  
  Sites like blogspot (where users get their own *.blogspot.com site address) will have just a single user's blog blocked, but ISP-hosted personal sites (where the address is often users.someisp.com/*) will have everyone's content blocked. The dames goes for forums and file-storage sites, where everything is under a single domain. In other words, the bad actions of a single player can result in the non-infringing free speech of others to be blocked. These other people have no affiliation with the infringer, but they are still being unfairly punished.
  
  Let me make this clear for the ACs out there. Nobody is arguing about what happens to the infringing content. It goes away. Oh well. What we care about is the rest of the content that gets caught in the crossfire. That's the part that E-PARASITES/SOPA supporters seem far too eager to ignore.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 7:01am

The thing that gets me is that if defenders of this bill were intellectually honest, they'd just admit that they were, in fact, trying to change the DMCA, and have a conversation on that point. So far, only Rep. Bob Goodlatte has been intellectually honest enough to admit that's the case. However, others in our comments and on other sites keep insisting that the bill is "narrowly drafted" just to impact the worst of the worst. Anyone who reads the plain (if convoluted) text of the bill knows that's simply not true. A "narrowly drafted" bill does not impact pretty much every internet property, like SOPA does.

I'd be happy to defend the bill and take a contrary position from you--since that's the view I honestly have and I'm happy to explain why. However, your contention that anyone who disagrees with you is being intellectually dishonest does not invite healthy debate. You've been so over-the-top since SOPA dropped, Mike. Calm down a bit and lead your commentators into a meaningful conversation over these issues. Insulting anyone who would dare disagree with you is not the right way to go about this. You seem to me to be more interested in demanding that this bill is the worst thing ever than you are in actually having a debate about it. Turn it down several notches, dude. Seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Doe, 4 Nov 2011 @ 7:07am
  
  Re:
  Now that the lecture is over can we here your views?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 8:19am
    
    Re: Re:
    Sure. First, I want to make sure that I understand the argument from Mike. From the piece quoted in Mike's article above:
    "One of the key definitions of that is if a site "is taking, or has taken, deliberate actions to avoid confirming a high probability" of infringement. Public Knowledge, a Washington, D.C., public interest group, helpfully boiled down that clumsy legalese to: "lacking sufficient zeal to prevent copyright infringement."
    
    In other words, it would place the responsibility for detecting and policing infringement onto the site itself, rather than content owners, as required under the DMCA.
    
    "There's really not much question that this bill is designed to do an end run around the DMCA," said Corynne McSherry, intellectual property director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital rights group in San Francisco. "What has been affirmed by court after court is that service providers do not have to affirmatively police infringement. That's a good thing because it's a terrible burden to put on a service provider."
    So the concern is over Section 104(a)(1)(B)(ii)(I) which states that a website "is dedicated to theft of U.S. property if . . . the operator of the U.S.-directed site is taking, or has taken, deliberate actions to avoid confirming a high probability of the use of the U.S.-directed site to carry out acts that constitute a violation of section 501 or 1201 of title 17, United States Code."
    
    This reminds me a lot of the "red flag" provisions in the DMCA, Section 512(c)(1)(A)(ii), which provide that a service provider maintains its safe harbor if that service provider "in the absence of such actual knowledge, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent."
    
    In both provisions, apparent knowledge of infringing activity creates a duty to act on the part of the service provider. How is the provision in SOPA qualitatively different than the duty that potentially exists under the DMCA? Neither provision creates the duty to "affirmatively police infringement" as McSherry claims. The SOPA provision, just like the DMCA provision, creates a duty to act only once a service provider has attained a certain level of knowledge about infringement on their service (I think of it as more than negligently, but less than intentionally; so it's in the neighborhood recklessly). That's different than a general duty to police one's service.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 9:22am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      If anything, SOPA gives more protection than the DMCA. Under SOPA, liability attaches only if the provider takes "deliberate actions to avoid confirming a high probability" of infringing use. This level of deliberateness is elevated, on par with "knowingly" as that's used in the MPC. The DMCA, on the other hand, takes away the safe harbor and opens the provider up to liability when there is only "apparent" knowledge, on par with "recklessness" under the MPC.
      
      The way I see it, SOPA gives you more protection that the DMCA. You lose your DMCA safe harbor with a lower level of scienter than you do under SOPA. If that's true, then why is everyone complaining that SOPA will bring about some crazy new duty that doesn't already exist under the DMCA? Mike's argument, if I understand it, makes no sense to me. I certainly don't think my point is "intellectually dishonest."
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 9:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No it doesn't under the DMCA people would have to ultimately go to court to solve their differences, SOPA does away with the courts.
        Quote:
        
        Right now, under the DMCA, a copyright holder can request a website remove material he or she owns. If the website refuses, the matter can go to court.
        
        SOPA gets around this by allowing the third party to go directly to advertisers, credit card companies, and ISPs to effectively shut down a website's lifeline when it's suspected of posting copyrighted material. There's no need to go to court either.
        
        For example, under SOPA, a copyright holder can go directly to Google and ask them to block all Google ads from a website that is suspected of carrying copyrighted works. If it's a commercial site, credit card companies and services like PayPal have the right to block all payments.
        
        It's a classic "shoot first, ask questions later" move, and has the potential to be harmful to sites and services such as Dropbox that depend on user uploaded content.
        
        http://www.businessinsider.com/stop-online-piracy-act-2011-10
        
        Under that ridiculous law, one can censor anyone just by accusing anybody and get the AG to act upon that accusation there is nothing saying the accusation must be accurate or that abuse of that mechanism will be punished severely so where is the incentive to not abuse it?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 11:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No it doesn't under the DMCA people would have to ultimately go to court to solve their differences, SOPA does away with the courts.
        
        You are bringing up a related, but different, point. You have not addressed my point which is that McSherry and Mike are wrong to say that SOPA creates a duty to "affirmatively police infringement." That's simply not true. Just like it works under the DMCA, under SOPA if you turn a blind eye to obvious infringing acts on your service, you expose yourself to liability. If you are honestly unaware of the infringing acts, you are not liable. There is no general duty to police.
        
        Your point doesn't make sense to me. Neither SOPA nor the DMCA "does away with the courts." Both have a notice and takedown procedure. If one side serves notice and the affected party disagrees, they can file a counter-notice and stop the takedown. From there the next step is the courts. There is simply an extra-judicial procedure that becomes judicial when it needs to. And there are penalties for abusing this procedure. Do you really think every little dispute should be a full-bore federal lawsuit right from the start? I don't.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 12:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        crickets...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 1:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So SOPA doesn't allow anyone to take action against suspect infringing websites?
        
        What is this then?
        (b) Action by the Attorney General-
        
        Where does it say it needs the courts to do anything?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 2:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The DMCA doesn't do away with courts?
        So what happens if a service providers fails to remove content?
        
        He loses protections right, that is a pretty good incentive to not fight anything or wait for a court to decide if something is infringing or not, it is also a powerful censor tool since there is no punishment for abusing the system with false DMCA's.
        
        SOPA goes even further than the DMCA because the DMCA at least said service provider should have knowledge of a problem and fail to take action, SOPA only needs a suspicion of failure to comply, service providers now have to prove they did everything they could to stop infringement, or face liability which for many small websites means the kiss of death.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 4:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The DMCA doesn't do away with courts? So what happens if a service providers fails to remove content? He loses protections right, that is a pretty good incentive to not fight anything or wait for a court to decide if something is infringing or not, it is also a powerful censor tool since there is no punishment for abusing the system with false DMCA's.
        
        There is a penalty for filing false DMCA notices. I don't think it's used often though.
        
        SOPA goes even further than the DMCA because the DMCA at least said service provider should have knowledge of a problem and fail to take action, SOPA only needs a suspicion of failure to comply, service providers now have to prove they did everything they could to stop infringement, or face liability which for many small websites means the kiss of death.
        
        The DMCA allows for apparent knowledge, meaning that something less than actual knowledge triggers the provision. So SOPA's "deliberate action" standard is nothing new. The idea of it is pretty straightforward. If infringing uses are so obvious that you have to be deliberately ignoring them so as not to see them, then the law is going to treat you as if you know about them. It seems only fair that you can't turn a blind eye to your site being used to break the law. This is how things work in the real world. The internet is no different. If I own a store and I know criminals are meeting up and fencing goods in my storeroom, I'm supposed to do something about it lest my inaction become complicity.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 9:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Quote:
        
        The proposed law would allow copyright and IP owners to issue requests for service termination if just one page on a site containing thousands of pages is deemed to violate the provisions of the law.
        
        For instance, an auction website with a single listing for a counterfeit would theoretically be in violation of SOPA.
        
        http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9221339/Opposition_to_Stop_Online_Piracy_Act_grows
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 11:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Quote:
        
        The proposed law would allow copyright and IP owners to issue requests for service termination if just one page on a site containing thousands of pages is deemed to violate the provisions of the law.
        
        For instance, an auction website with a single listing for a counterfeit would theoretically be in violation of SOPA.
        
        http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9221339/Opposition_to_Stop_Online_Piracy_Act_grows
        
        Can you quote me the language from SOPA that leads you think that "an auction website with a single listing for a counterfeit would theoretically be in violation of SOPA." Let's see what the actual text says first.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 12:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        crickets...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 1:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "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--"
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 2:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "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--"
        
        You need to keep reading. It continues after the "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.
        You still have to have the commission of criminal acts. Why should it matter if those acts occur on a portion of a site as opposed to the entire site?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        RyanRadia (profile), 7 Nov 2011 @ 12:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If I operate a site that, unbeknownst to me, facilitates an act of criminal copyright infringement by one of my users, I could be deemed a 'foreign infringing site.' there is no scienter or knowledge requirement. That's a big problem, and essentially imposes a duty to monitor.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 9:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The DMCA is wildly abused today, most complaints sent to Google are business targeting others business not copyright holders trying to stop piracy and you want to give more powers to people who don't know how to use it?
        
        Unbelievable.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 11:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The DMCA is wildly abused today, most complaints sent to Google are business targeting others business not copyright holders trying to stop piracy and you want to give more powers to people who don't know how to use it?
        
        Unbelievable.
        
        What percentage of the total amount of takedown notices are abusive? What exactly does "wildly abused" mean?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 1:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Quote:
        In its submission, Google notes that more than half (57%) of the takedown notices it has received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998, were sent by business targeting competitors and over one third (37%) of notices were not valid copyright claims.
        
        http://pcworld.co.nz/pcworld/pcw.nsf/feature/93FEDCEF6636CF90CC25757A0072B4B7
        
        http://www .chillingeffects.org/index.cgi
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 2:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Quote:
        
        In its submission, Google notes that more than half (57%) of the takedown notices it has received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998, were sent by business targeting competitors and over one third (37%) of notices were not valid copyright claims.
        
        http://pcworld.co.nz/pcworld/pcw.nsf/feature/93FEDCEF6636CF90CC25757A0072B4B7
        
        http:/ /www .chillingeffects.org/index.cgi
        
        So the majority were for valid copyright claims. And that's just Google. What about the rest of the internet?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 9:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Quote:
        SEC. 2. SAVINGS AND SEVERABILITY CLAUSES.
        
        (a) Savings Clauses-
        
        (1) FIRST AMENDMENT- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to impose a prior restraint on free speech or the press protected under the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.
        
        (2) TITLE 17 LIABILITY- Nothing in title I shall be construed to enlarge or diminish liability, including vicarious or contributory liability, for any cause of action available under title 17, United States Code, including any limitations on liability under such title.
        
        (b) Severability- If any provision of this Act, or the application of the provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the other provisions or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.
        
        Source: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:1:./temp/~c112YH30CJ:e1014:
        
        You know something is wrong when they try to pass a law that starts by stating what it is not to try and appease the opposition when they know full well it will have repercussions to those points.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 11:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You know something is wrong when they try to pass a law that starts by stating what it is not to try and appease the opposition when they know full well it will have repercussions to those points.
        
        So your argument is that because it contains a savings clause, therefore it is wrong? That's not good logic. How many bills contain savings clauses? Are all of them "wrong" too?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 12:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Are they all trying to outright mislead about the purpose of the law?
        
        If so yes, that is a given.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 3:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Are they all trying to outright mislead about the purpose of the law?
        
        If so yes, that is a given.
        
        How are they misleading, and who is they?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 10:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        In other words "deliberate actions to avoid confirming a high probability of infringing use" is "If you don't actively search your services for infringement you are responsible".
        
        That is just great news I'm sure everybody is thrilled, we should make a law just like that for just about anything, we should start making labels pro-actively starting to do background checks on their artists and if they are found to be criminals they should not in any way do business with such people.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 11:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        In other words "deliberate actions to avoid confirming a high probability of infringing use" is "If you don't actively search your services for infringement you are responsible".
        
        But those are not the same thing. You do not need to "actively search your services for infringement" unless you have knowledge that there's a "high probability of infringing uses." If you don't have that high level of knowledge, you do not have to take any action. So to say that you have a duty to police your network generally is incorrect.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 12:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        crickets...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 12:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So stupid people are exempt? I don't see any problem with this.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 12:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So stupid people are exempt? I don't see any problem with this.
        
        Not exactly. It's an objective standard, so a stupid person could be liable if a reasonable person under those same circumstances would have been on notice. Their stupidity does not exempt them since any knowledge below the reasonable-person minimum is simply imputed to them by law.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 1:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No that is not an objective standard, that is a subjective one dependent on a series of factors social and cultural not to mention economical.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 12:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Not the same thing, but they all end the same, with one being forced to do the work that is the obligation of another.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 1:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Lets be clear according to the IFPI every blog on earth already received a DMCA from their bots so that just may suffice to claim "high probability of infringing use".
        
        http://www.chillingeffects.org/weather.cgi?WeatherID=635
        
        Or every app market out there like the Android market.
        
        http://www.chillingeffects.org/weather.cgi?WeatherID=648
        
        So what this means is that content creators get to keep sending DMCA's bogus or otherwise and then turn around and say that others are not doing enough to stop piracy because they have been warned more than once and so they know there is a high probability that piracy is taking place but don't do nothing about it.
        
        Nice I see how that will work.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 1:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So if someone does nothing to confirm a high probability of infringing use there is no problem then?
        
        Or inaction is a deliberate action to avoid confirmation?
        If no then you have your answer people need and will be held to it, they must now keep an eye do something, and when bigger websites can afford better tools and the little ones can't they probably all will be shutdown for not doing enough right?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 1:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Further the DMCA explicit says one must have knowledge of infringing material and don't act, SOPA only says you should have had knowledge of it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 3:47pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Further the DMCA explicit says one must have knowledge of infringing material and don't act, SOPA only says you should have had knowledge of it.
        
        That's not what the DMCA says. You've got it backwards. Section 512(c)(1)(A) of the DMCA: A service provider maintains its safe harbor if it "(i) does not have actual knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the system or network is infringing; (ii) in the absence of such actual knowledge, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent."
        
        So there are two types of knowledge under the DMCA: (1) actual knowledge, and (2) apparent knowledge. So under the DMCA, you don't actually have to know about the infringing uses. It would just have to have been apparent to a reasonable person. But under SOPA, the omissions have to be deliberate. Knowledge is not imputed--it has to be proved.
        
        So, in reality, SOPA gives more protection than the DMCA. Now, how is this supposed to break the internet again?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 5 Nov 2011 @ 3:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That's not what the DMCA says. You've got it backwards.
        
        It is you, in fact, who has it backwards:
        
        Thus, the critical question is whether the statutory phrases "actual knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the system or network is infringing," and "facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent" in Sec. 512(c)(1)(A)(i) and (ii) mean a general awareness that there are infringements (here, claimed to be widespread and common), or rather mean actual or constructive knowledge of specific and identifiable infringements of individual items. [...]
        
        The tenor of the foregoing provisions [the Congressional record] is that the phrases "actual knowledge that the material or an activity" is infringing, and "facts or circumstances" indicating infringing activity, describe knowledge of specific and identifiable infringements of particular individual items. Mere knowledge of prevalance of such activity in general is not enough.
        
        - from the Google v. Viacom ruling
        
        Yet, this is exactly what SOPA wants to undermine. It holds all sites, around the world, liable if they have "avoided confirming a high probability" of infringement. So, they do not even have to have "mere knowledge of the prevalance of such activity," they only have to "avoid confirming" the prevalance of such activity.
        
        Furthermore, since rights holders would have the ability to blacklist sites without those sites even responding, it essentially means they get to decide how "avioding confirming a high probability" is interpreted.
        
        And it's even worse if you're a streaming site, such as YouTube. In the section that criminalizes streaming, there is an even lower standard of knowledge. In order to stream materials online without liability, you must have "a good faith reasonable basis in law to believe" that the content is authorized. An example of such a belief is "a person engaged in conduct forming the basis of a bona fide commercial dispute over the scope of existence of a contract or license."
        
        Yes, that's right: it implies that if you're not directly in negotiations with the copyright owners about every single video on your site, you're liable for any infringement. You just have to lack a "reasonable basis" that the content (even that which you didn't know about) was authorized.
        
        This is far, far worse than the DMCA.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 10:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:1:./temp/~c112YH30CJ:e2611:
        
        Where in the text is the statutes that shall punish the abuse of the law sir?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2011 @ 3:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Because there is no 'safe harbor' in SOPA, either you 'confirm with a high probability' (what's high, my son seems to think that 65% is a high probability... any guesses at where the bar will be set for 'high probability'?) or you don't and you have no safe harbor.
        
        One is clear and easy to understand when it's terms haven't been met, the other is wide open to multiple interpretations.... Does a random sampling of 5% of the 'stuff' showing a .05% (of the 5% - lets pretend we can wave a magic wand and determine exactly how much of the 5% sampled is infringing....) percentage as infringing constitute, 'avoid confirming a high probability' of infringing use? To me, sure that seems reasonable, but to the **AA, anything less than 0% infringing material (ignoring the fact that it's currently impossible to determine this with any degree of accuracy) will not be 'confirming a high probability' and will get you cut off from payments and advertising (but we're not shutting your business down, just taking away your ability to make money or generate sales...)
        
        A typical backwards attitude encountered in IT security is, "Take it away, if they don't ask for it back, obviously they didn't need it in the first place." It's a pretty typical attitude by monopolies (yes in house IT has a monopoly on providing IT services to the company, so it is a form of internal monopoly, and one that's exceedingly difficult to deal with in a highly political environment.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
martyburns (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 7:09am

F eel free to comment but stay on topic.

E rroneously shooting the messenger when it has absolutely nothing to do with the article does not make you look intelligent. 'Calling Mike out' just makes you look incredibly desperate. This goes doubly so for when it is just a baseless accusation.

D o use intelligent thought and actually consider the other side's opinion for once. Logic is encouraged at this step.

U nderstand history, and by this I mean a good review of past government abuses of badly written laws (See: computer fraud and abuse type acts with regards to 'hacking' and 'unauthorized access'). Also, consider the groups who Claim to support artists own history (See: number of complaints on CreativeAmerica about people feeling they were duped into signing, see also: number of times artists have shown that the labels refuse them payments on just about any residuals ever)

P rovide links when you make great claims, in order to back yourself up.

! Dont be shocked when somebody responds with lots of links and facts and PLEASE don't run away. We we encourage genuine debate and would like to try and understand your point of view.

Thank you, come again.

FTFY :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- martyburns (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 7:10am
  
  Re:
  whoops, didn't reply to post above, please ignore..
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
out_of_the_blue, 4 Nov 2011 @ 7:16am

The /actual/ effect will be narrow because of practical limits.
I've been surprised that the DMCA hasn't accomplished this already. It's written so broadly that you risk jail for tinkering with the OS in your Playstation.

So I doubt that SOPA is going to do all the damage that you think (or as much as desired by MPAA): there'll be practical limits. I don't like the broad language, let alone that it can be used to justify anything, BUT I'm not going to agree that letting pirating go on is either practical or wise.

If "latviablogging.com" doesn't keep vague tabs on their domain, that's their problem. Lazy hosting companies don't justify activities that are /obviously/ based on infringing. It'd take about a minute a week to determine that, and is just part of the cost of doing business on the net.

Bad analogy, as all are: Would you allow the head shop at your local mall to let random people stand around in the shop peddling drugs openly? Or kick them out? The shop can claim that they're not responsible for what its customers do, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 7:30am
  
  Re: The /actual/ effect will be narrow because of practical limits.
  "I've been surprised that the DMCA hasn't accomplished this already. It's written so broadly that you risk jail for tinkering with the OS in your Playstation."
  
  It's because you can't claim to be some sort of service provider. If you could, you could go through the large back door, and avoid DMCA liablity entirely.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Karl (profile), 5 Nov 2011 @ 3:37pm
    
    Re: Re: The /actual/ effect will be narrow because of practical limits.
    It's because you can't claim to be some sort of service provider. If you could, you could go through the large back door, and avoid DMCA liablity entirely.
    
    You know, A.C.'s (meaning, I suspect, mostly you) have been claiming this for a while now, and it's bullshit.
    
    First of all, service provider or not, you're only immune from liability in cases where your users (not you) post infringing material.
    
    Furthermore, you have to act immediately to remove that material.
    
    In fact, the notice-and-takedown system is heavily biased to favor rights holders over ISP's, search engines, or individual users.
    
    And the part he's talking about (bypassing "copy protection" schemes) has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the notice-and-takedown system. You're equally liable whether you're a service provider or a college student.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 7:31am
  
  Re: The /actual/ effect will be narrow because of practical limits.
  I thought the DMCA already covered that, by giving copytards the ability to point out who is a criminal to others who can't distinguish who is or who is not.
  
  The funny thing about copyright is that the same product can be legal and illegal is a Schr�dinger's cat thing.
  
  You can see people dealing drugs, that is easy, but how do you spot people dealing illegal drugs inside a pharmacy?
  
  We just close all pharmacies because they can be used to sell illegal drugs?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 9:40am
  
  Re: The /actual/ effect will be narrow because of practical limits.
  But label's using 'lazy accounting' (it's actually shady, underhanded, deceitful, and I call Shenanigans, but ...) practices to screw artists over is perfectly okay with you.
  
  Obviously you are an industry shill...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Franklin G Ryzzo (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 4:26pm
  
  Re: The /actual/ effect will be narrow because of practical limits.
  "I don't like the broad language, let alone that it can be used to justify anything, BUT I'm not going to agree that letting pirating go on is either practical or wise."
  
  Make no mistake, if this bill gets passed, it will do absolutely nothing to curb file-sharing in any way, shape, or form. People who want to download will continue unabated. At worst, the methods might change slightly, but for the most part nothing will change. If this bill only targeted "pirates", then I don't think anyone would really care whether it was passed or not. Since it's the innocent people that will suffer due to the broad language used in the bill and it's ripe potential for abuse, there is no reason that anyone (freetard or paytard alike) should support it.
  
  This bill does nothing but erode away the rights of the American public granted by the 1st, 4th, and 14th amendments!
  
  Since many have tried to sway your view with conventional wisdom, facts, logic, name calling, and pretty much every other method available, let me try with a haiku...
  
  PIPA... SOPA... Why?
  D.M.C.A. is enough.
  Censorship is wrong!
  
  Please reflect on that for a bit and see if it stirs anything in your soul :)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 7:25am

I compare the MAFIAA to the people who used to deliver Ice to peoples homes. They don't want to loose their jobs but what can we say the refrigerator exists now and we dont need their gatekeeping services anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 8:08am

AJ, are you suggesting that if enough people are murdered or enough people speed that the police should just give up? Scale is never an answer.

Yes, scale is an answer. If the majority of the population does something against the law - whether intentionally or not - the law and not the people must change.

[�reply to this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 7:29pm
  
  Re:
  Hitler would agree
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 8:14am

When is all this being voted on or decided by?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 10:16am

You are all copying my ideas of expressing stupid things with words, this site will be removed from the cosmic intergalactic Internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 10:28am

" A "narrowly drafted" bill does not impact pretty much every internet property, like SOPA does."

The narrowness of the bill isn't really an issue. A law that requires all car owners to have headlights is narrow enough, and a bill that addresses the internet may in itself be narrow enough at that level. Narrowness is something for the courts to look at, if and when someone chooses to argue down that line.

So arguing narrowness at this point is meaningless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 3:06pm

Here's Scott Ian from Anthrax saying what every other musician wants to say to you:

http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=1655 47
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2011 @ 3:19pm
  
  Re:
  Please post more of these, so I know which artists to avoid....I won't listen to their songs (legally, or illegally), and they won't get a dime from me.
  
  I will kindly pay an artist if they are decent, respectable, and treat their fans right.
  
  I will no longer pay the middle man to steal from both the artist and the fans.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Brendan (profile), 6 Nov 2011 @ 5:39pm
  
  Re:
  Sounds like a complete moron.
  
  And no, the punishment does not fit the crime. The internet is used for a whole hell of a lot thses days, downloading a few albums and movies is really a minor component.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2011 @ 8:30pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Not really, especially when you have some people profiting MAJORLY off of other's hard work from these "few albums or movies." Content creators, be it big time companies or small indie productions, don't get paid when you pirate their stuff. So something obviously has to be done to ensure content creators get paid a fair amount of money for their work. I agree this bill is a bit too far though...mainly in that USERS who upload illegal content should be held liable, not the site. Unless if they're assholes like tpb and frequently joke and troll the companies that send them DMCA letters that they don't give a shit and will continue doing as they please. But as long as a site makes a reasonable effort to screen for copyrighted content, and immediately removes links when informed, they should not get in trouble.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Jay (profile), 7 Nov 2011 @ 1:55am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Content creators, be it big time companies or small indie productions, don't get paid when you pirate their stuff.
      
      Then why do places such as Stumbleupon, Reddit, and Huffington Post exist? They allow people to find content for FREE.
      
      Unless if they're assholes like tpb and frequently joke and troll the companies that send them DMCA letters that they don't give a shit and will continue doing as they please.
      
      Because they're Swedish innovators that have found a way to make the internet work for them. Something the big labels have yet to figure out. All seem to have gone on to make careers outside of the Pirate Bay and innovate with newer technology. And judging from all intents and purposes, the fact remains that there is little evidence that piracy is harming anyone. And please, before you sit here and say how "Yes, piracy is killing small children in Ethiopia" please remember:
      
      Either people would do so anyway, the site doesn't host that content in the first place (ie look into magnet links) or there is no evidence that the end users would pay the asking price if it's too high for an end good. So sitting here and saying that Swedens have to respect US law in their native country is beyond ludicrous. Next thing you know, you'll tell me the US isn't giving Mexican drug dealers guns illegally.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Butcherer79 (profile), 7 Nov 2011 @ 2:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I think you may have hit the proverbial nail on the head here:
        "So sitting here and saying that Swedens have to respect US law in their native country is beyond ludicrous."
        
        Whatever law is passed in the US nationally, cannot be rationally rolled out worldwide, unless of course the US is going to take on all laws of other countries too, a scary thought when you think of places like north korea, where you're told what your opinion is before you're allowed to form one (this is just one of many laws from other countries that simply couldn't exist under the US constitution, I'm sure you can all think of many others).
        
        So arguing that SOPA/E-PARASITE must be brought in to stop TPB is absolutely ludicrus, I'm sure the owners of TPB couldn't care less about what another country's internet usage rights are. I think this discussion and any arguments for or against SOPA/E-PARASITE should be limited to what affect and effect it will have in it's country of origin, not how it could affect sites based where this law cannot be enforced.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2011 @ 6:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Then why do places such as Stumbleupon, Reddit, and Huffington Post exist? They allow people to find content for FREE."
        
        Yes they do. But those sites either use the money from advertising to pay their employees, or in reddit's case the content is user-made and released for free. So it's ok to use that content for free since the author intended it to be that way. But you seriously can't compare that to somebody pirating a book or a music cd since the creator of those intended to make money off their creation, not release them for free willingly like the sites you listed.
        
        "Because they're Swedish innovators that have found a way to make the internet work for them. Something the big labels have yet to figure out."
        
        I'm a musician too, and I agree the labels are retarded for not getting with the times. But that doesn't make it right to steal their product, or anyone else's product for that matter either. You say that piracy doesn't harm anyone, but what about indie productions which NEED that money to keep producing stuff? If you pirate their product, it's going to hurt them when they don't have money to keep their business running...and don't start the "try before you buy" crap. While some people will pirate the product to try it then buy it if they like it, most people would just keep the pirated version since they no longer have a reason to buy it. So no, I don't consider stealing money from content creator's pockets "innovation."
        
        "Either people would do so anyway, the site doesn't host that content in the first place (ie look into magnet links) or there is no evidence that the end users would pay the asking price if it's too high for an end good."
        
        I know the site doesn't host the content...but if they get a notice, they should take those links down since the notice is a clear statement that the content creator DOES NOT want their product given away for free. And really? "The price is too high so I'm just gonna steal the product?" If the "asking price" at a store for a product was too high, would it be ok for the "end user" to just steal it? No, and the store would have every right to have that person arrested even if they were a foreign tourist. So how come it's different when a musician or game dev tries to take action on someone stealing their product?
        
        "So sitting here and saying that Swedens have to respect US law in their native country is beyond ludicrous."
        
        Not if the thing that the content creator produced has a copyright in that country. Many things produced today do have this. So what would your answer be if the content creator DID have a copyright for their content in Sweden? They would certainly have the right to send tpb a request to take the links to their content down.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Brendan (profile), 13 Nov 2011 @ 12:43am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      If the "MAJOR" profits you allude are truly up for grabs, why does the industry not provide their own version or such services and collect the money themselves?
      
      The truth is that nobody (or very few people) is really making all that much money.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2011 @ 6:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So you are telling me that all these filesharing sites DON'T make a killing off their advertising? Or what about the advertising providers that also profit off of those ads?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chilly8, 4 Nov 2011 @ 8:11pm

Some people, especially outside the USA, refuse to believe that Sopa/Protect IP will affect them.

I have posted many times on the Wiziwig (formerly myp2p) forum, where a lot of hobbyist streamers, many of whom only stream for the love of the content, congregate, and I have tried to convince they that SOPA, especially the House version of the Commercial Felony Streaming Act will affect them.

The House and Senate versions of CFSA are quite different. The Senate version of CFSA, contrary to all the FUD going around, only applies to those who transmit content, and for commercial purposes, and does not cover viewers, while the House version of the bill does make viewing the streams a criminal offence. I have tried to convince them they need to make their voice heard on SOPA, but they think I am nuts. They think that becuase they are in the EU, they are out of reach of US laws. They will learn the hard way that US laws can and will be applied to them.

One would think these people over in Europe would luuurve their hobby of streaming sports, especially from Europsport, Eurovision, NTV, and CnopT2, to the entire world, would want to make their voices heard about SOPA, but they won't have it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
James, 8 Nov 2011 @ 10:47am

Honestly if you support this legislation, you are quite clearly not a supporter of the constitution or its guaranteed liberties.

If you support E-Parasite or SOPA, you are anti-liberty. Since when does a copyright mean that other freedoms get to be completely voided, even if not profiting from the violation of the copyright.

Again, if you support this legislation, you don't support the constitution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]