More Collateral Damage From SOPA: People With Print Disabilities And Human Rights Groups
from the add-them-to-the-list dept
As people wake up to the full horror of what SOPA would do to the Internet and its users, an increasing number of organizations with very different backgrounds are coming out against it. Here's one more to add to that list, from the world of non-profit humanitarian groups.As Jim Fruchterman, president of the Silicon Valley-based Benetech, explains in his post "Why I am Scared of the SOPA bill":
We write software for people with disabilities as well as human rights and environmental groups. We’re against piracy, and have made commitments to authors and publishers to encourage compliance with copyright law.Fruchterman goes on to explore two major areas of concern. The first is that Bookshare, an online library for people who can’t read standard print books, might lose the ability to raise funds or take subscriptions.
So, we shouldn’t have anything to fear from a bill entitled “Stop Online Piracy Act,” right? Unfortunately, that’s not the case.
We’re getting very worried that our organization and the people we serve: people with print disabilities (i.e., people who are blind or severely dyslexic), and human rights groups will be collateral damage in Hollywood’s attempt to break the Internet in their latest effort to squash “piracy.” And, if we’re worried, a lot of other good organizations should start getting worried!
As he points out, Bookshare is legal in the US, but that doesn't stop authors, agents or publishers who don’t know much about people with disabilities or copyright law sending cease and desist letters. At present, Benetech has time to talk people through the law before anything drastic happens. Here's how SOPA would change all that:
SOPA apparently has shoot first, ask questions later provisions. If any single publisher or author of any one of the more than 130,000 accessible books in our library gets antsy, they can send a notice to VISA and MasterCard and say, stop money from going to Benetech and Bookshare. No more donations to our charity. No more subscriptions from individual adults with disabilities.There are two major problems here. First, the money gets cuts off immediately, jeopardizing the entire Bookshare project. Secondly, Benetech has to spend its limited funds paying lawyers to get the financial blocks removed. That will not only take time, it will hamper other worthwhile projects that Benetech could have been working on instead of fighting to get its revenue sources turned back on again.
No need to send us a letter. Or file a DMCA notice. Or do any real research. Just send out a bunch of notices and get all those pirates! Except, we’re not pirates. But, now the burden of proof has shifted to us: we’re presumed guilty, and we have to spent time and money defending ourselves.
It's those other projects that Fruchterman worries about in his second concern. Benetech develops free software to help human rights activists around the world safely record stories of human rights abuse. As Fruchterman points out, if SOPA becomes law, his organization will find itself in an impossible position:
The problem is that we provide technology that allows for security, privacy and circumvention. We do it for human rights groups. But, when asked if we know whether or not there are “pirated” copyrighted materials, we can’t say. Because, if we make software that promises to keep your life or death sensitive information secret to the best of our abilities, we won’t build a back door in for Syria, or China, or the U.S. government or even (heavens!) Hollywood.But SOPA will give the US Attorney General the power to shut down sites that can be used for evading controls on piracy, and Benetech's software could certainly be employed in just that way (even if that is not its purpose). To avoid that, Benetech would presumably have to stop writing and distributing its code - which would place human rights organizations and activists at risk.
What makes this situation particularly ridiculous is that the US government is itself encouraging the spread of just this kind of software, even going so far as to invest in companies producing it. Does that mean the US government will be giving out money to write such software, and then using SOPA to shut it down?
Fruchterman's comments are particularly valuable since they come from an organization that has a proven record of encouraging compliance with copyright law. This is no evil "friend of piracy", as opponents of SOPA are so often branded: this is just some people deeply concerned that two vulnerable groups – those with print disabilities and human rights activists – will be collateral damage if this ill thought-out bill is enacted.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+
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: disabilities, human rights, pipa, protect ip, sopa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
This is quite possibly one of the biggest lies told about SOPA. Visa and Mastercard would be absolutely taking huge legal risks if the cut off processing without some communication. Further, the ones making the claims to Visa and Mastercard would be risking criminal liablity by effectively interfering in the legal business by making false claims.
It seems mostly like this guy got the EFF scare monger sheet, and is working from it. Want to bet there is a solid connection between those two groups?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
SEC. 105. IMMUNITY FOR TAKING VOLUNTARY ACTION AGAINST SITES THAT ENDANGER PUBLIC HEALTH.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.3261:
Will you continue to lie?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Source: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.3261:
Fucking liar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But the responder IS certainly a fucking asshole for the way he handled his responses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Is right there in the bill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
For real, bro?
"This is quite possibly one of the biggest lies told about SOPA."
"I read the bill"
"It does not in any way take away criminal liability under existing fraud laws"
He accuses someone of lying for accurately portraying the bill, claims to know the bill, and then makes false claims about the bill.
That is lying, you disingenuous dingbat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hence the aggressive response he got.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's one thing to be the one shoveling the shit all day...
It's another thing to point out, "Hey, he's shoveling shit."
So in government at least, it's better to be a liar than to point out that someone is lying.
I've also been told it's not fair to call someone a liar if they 'really really' believe what they are saying.... Seriously? So if they don't understand what they are saying, they are either totally incompetent or a bald faced liar.... Sometimes you just have to call em like you see em...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Read it properly
Which means that the concerns about Bookshare are really somewhat excessive; it’s hard to imagine that Visa or MasterCard could claim to have a “reasonable belief” that Bookshare was “dedicated to theft of U.S. property”.
SOPA may have problems, but IMO this particular one is being blown out of proportion by its detractors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Read it properly
Except, from what I've heard and read about it so far, it's NOT Visa or MasterCard that need "reasonable belief." Somebody else has already made that determination, who then orders the payment providers to stop the funding channels, under the threat of litigation.
Seriously, how the hell are Visa or MasterCard excpected to look at an entity and determine whether their content is infringing? Saying they are the ones who must determine "reasonable belief" is just being deliberately misleading.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Read it properly
Bingo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Read it properly
The reasonable belief is in the data supplied to them by a douche that probably don't understand the law and can claim anything and get toasted in the end, it will not stop VISA or MASTERCARD from cutting anybody off though since they obeyed the law to the letter and are immune.
No company will spend money to verify hundreds of thousands of claims because a) they don't have the money and b) even if they did have the money to do so it would be extremely expensive to do it in 5 days and c) the law doesn't require it to do so which is deliberately because if it they were obliged to do so this bill would never pass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
They know how to deliver content, hulu shows that they have the ability to make this work. The problem they face is the continuing downward pressure on the price of digital content. The phrase "Analog dollars and digital dimes" comes to mind, it is the thing they fear most. It is the thing that has them frozen like a deer in headlights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You're right! It's just like those people who send DMCA takedown requests for stuff they don't even have the rights to! They get severely punished and...
Oh, wait. They don't get punished at all. So much for that logic...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"But... then the copyright lawyers flipped out. Despite this and other suggestions already being agreed to, the copyright folks proposed a bunch of changes -- including deleting the "penalty of perjury" inclusion. "
Hollywood doesn't want there to be any penalties for submitting a false claim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Unfortunately, here neither of these proposals are presented here in their entirety. One is selectively quoted, and the other is not quoted, selectively or otherwise.
In their absence, it is impossible to secure an accurate understanding of the respective positions and the analysis leading to such positions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Disingenuous shill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Bull they have no problem cutting a card off been there done that and suck when you find out while trying to pay for something 300 miles from home then to get it active they had to send a new card been there
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's not a lie at all. It's all in Sec. 103(b). Any rights holder can simply fire off a notice to the designated agents of financial services providers and/or advertisers, and those entities must stop doing business with the website in the notice. This applies to foreign and domestic websites [see 103(a)(1)]; and it all happens without any party ever seeing the inside of a courtroom.
It is possible to file a counter-notification. But there is nothing in the bill that requires the advertisers or payment processors to actually stop the blacklist once they receive a counter-notice. If they do not comply with the blacklist, they can get sued themselves [see 103(d)(4)(B)]; but if they maintain the blacklist, they are absolved of any liability [see 103(d)(5)(B)].
It seems mostly like you got the RIAA talking points memo, and are working from it. Want to bet there is a solid connection between you two?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also that is a problem in a country that defines everything as dangerous. Encryption is or was considered a munition and it is therefore falls under this BS.
But it would be good if it was only encryption, the US government has a bad habit of putting a lot of stuff under that classification, so people developing drones, jet engines, foundries could all become targets for this BS law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Seriously though, those are illegal here in the US because they are dangerous. Our government is made up of a bunch of idiots to make laws like this. Any kid stupid and greedy enough to swallow one of those whole deserves to choke.
These kinds of things really should make people stop and wonder though. If a chocolate candy sold around the world is labeled as too dangerous for us stupid Americans then what else does our "wise" government think we need protecting from?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Goodbye, wikileaks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5979923&postID=2668582767203941823
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It wouldn't be the first time the US government has done something like that. The US government has already spent millions on anti-smoking campaigns, while at the same time giving millions in subsidies to American cigarette manufacturers who were suffering from decreasing cigarette sales due to all the anti-smoking campaigns the government was funding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Saw that coming.
Wait...
They better break out the flamethrowers against 4chan.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Saw that coming.
ABANDON SHIP!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1. The current language of the bill essentially holds everyone accountable for a few people's actions. Never should an ISP be held accountable for a website's/user's action, unless there is CLEAR EVIDENCE that they knew about it. The bill as it stands puts forth such vague wording that, even if it isn't intended to, companies can use it to shutdown and ask questions later - a system that is in direct contradiction to Due Process in that a law MUST be declared fair to all parties involved.
2. A large amount of the people against SOPA/PIPA are the very people that understand how the internet functions and keep it running. As such, these same people have the knowledge to create alternatives that circumvent ANY law created and it is already being done. Look at Tor.
3. Pirates may just start trafficking in SSL, IPSec, or some other encrypted protocol that ISPs, Companies, and Lawmakers would only be able to view the information by getting the encryption key or by cracking the encryption (which would be illegal since the same protocols are used to send legally protected information across the internet).
4. Block DNS won't do any good. Assuming that at least 75-80% of people involved in piracy are tech saavy, then all they would have to do is set up a proxy (which is legal) to a non-US DNS server to regain access to a website or server hosting pirated material.
Simply put, SOPA/PIPA are trying to attack the piracy problem in the wrong way. Yes, DMCA as it stands isn't doing enough, but most of the ways people are getting pirated material wouldn't really be affected by the bills. They'd find a way around it - LIKE THEY ALWAYS DO. Congress needs to create a much more narrow bill that targets specific entities rather than holding every person on the planet that uses the internet responsible for the actions of a few.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of Course, The Old “They Won’t Kill Our Human Shields” Ploy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Of Course, The Old “They Won’t Kill Our Human Shields” Ploy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brochure printing Brisbane
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Join us
You can post your print jobs and requirements at www.BuySellPrint.com for FREE and also get free print quotes.
Please tell us what else would you like to see on a trading platform for printers?
Thanks.
BuySellPrint Team
www.BuySellPrint.com
www.facebook.com/BuySellPrint
www.twitter.com/BuySellPrint
http://www.linkedin.com/company/2640359?trk=tyah
[ link to this | view in chronology ]