Tons Of Amendments Proposed For SOPA
from the sit-back-and-relax,-this-is-going-to-take-a-while dept
The "markup" process for SOPA is going to begin shortly (at 10am ET/7am PT), and it's going to be quite a circus. This is when various amendments can be proposed and debated. You can watch it stream live, if they can keep the stream up (they had trouble during the SOPA hearings). On top of that, I'm planning to live tweet as much as I can via my Twitter account -- assuming Twitter doesn't tell me I've "hit the limit of tweets for the day" (as it did during the hearings as well). I also have a few meetings here and there, so I'll have to disappear from time to time depending on how long the markup goes. But I still intend to cover as much as I can.Normally, this process doesn't take a huge amount of time... but this time around there are a huge number of amendments, and reports are that it may take two days to get through everything. I've heard anywhere from 55 to 60 amendments are being proposed, each one of which needs to be discussed and voted on. We got our hands on an "amendments roster" (embedded below) that shows 55 amendments. It's possible that more have been added. However, there are plenty of interesting amendments already here -- and it suggests, at the very least, that some unexpected members of the Judiciary Committee retain serious concerns about SOPA, even after Lamar Smith's watered down version was released.
Here are just a few of the interesting amendments:
- Zoe Lofgren has an amendment that says a DNS operator should have no obligation to block a website if doing so would impair the security or integrity of the domain name system or the operator's system or network. I'm sure opponents will say this makes the blocking toothless, but what they're really saying is they don't care if censoring websites they don't like harms the security of the internet.
- Darrell Issa tries to completely dump the DNS blocking section, as well as the requirements for search engines to block links. This would be a huge step forward... which is why Smith will never let it happen.
- Lofgren wants to make sure the anti-circumvention rule isn't able to be used to block tools used to get around foreign censorship. Considering our own State Department is funding such tools... this seems important. But it does lead to a bizarre situation where it could be legal to create circumvention tools for foreigners, but not for your own country. The whole circumvention stuff is ridiculous.
- Lofgren also wants to make sure that those defined as "foreign infringing sites" actually violate copyright law, rather than "facilitate" infringement. Defenders of SOPA insist it's just about enforcement, not about broadening copyright law itself. But when you extend enforcement to things that don't directly break the law...
- Jared Polis wants an amendment saying that the US government won't spend any money "protecting the intellectual property rights of pornography." Interesting.
- Polis also wants to dump the anti-circumvention provisions entirely. Good for him. Anti-circumvention has been a disaster under the DMCA. Expanding it here would just be crazy.
- Jim Sensenbrenner wants to do away with the private right of action entirely. Also a good idea. At least someone recognizes that this is a lawyer's dream tool. The private right of action will be massively abused. It wasn't clear where Sensenbrenner stood on the overall bill, but nice to see that he's clearly concerned with the likely abuse of section 103. He has another amendment that "replaces" the private right of action with the ability serve an order on payment providers and ad networks -- but limits the authority to enforce this to the Attorney General. I'm not sure this is that much better, but it'll be interesting to hear the details.
- Lofgren tries to narrow the definition of what's "dedicated to theft of US property." This needs to be narrowed. While it's narrower than it was in the original, it's still way too broad.
- Jason Chaffetz has an amendment that says if a company files an action based on Section 103 (trying to get ads or payment processors cut off) and the court disagrees... the company who files has to pay all fees of all the parties. Similarly, Ben Quayle, has an amendment that says anyone who knowingly misrepresents that a site is "dedicated to theft of us property," they'll be required to pay attorneys fees and court costs, and another amendment that just says that the losing party pays. Good to see more members worried about how the private right of action can be abused.
- There are a bunch of amendments clarifying that ad networks, payment processors and search engines should only get immunity in very specific cases for voluntarily cutting off sites, rather than the broad immunity currently in the bill.
- Chaffetz and Polis both have amendments concerning the "study" on the impact. Chaffetz, quite rightly, says that key parts of section 102's DNS blocking should not go into effect until after a study is done assessing the impact on internet security. Polis also wants a report on the impact of DNS blocking, as well as the impact on "employment, economic growth and the availability of capital."
- Polis wants to add in DMCA-like safe harbors to the felony streaming provisions, and also make it so first time offenses remain a misdemeanor.
- Hank Johnson includes one of my favorite clauses, and one I think should be on almost every bill: the provisions of the bill expire after five years. Why more bills don't have such provisions, I don't understand.
- Polis takes on the issue of massively expanding the diplomatic corp. with diplomats whose sole job it is to push ever more draconian copyright law on foreign nations, by saying they should be required to "consider fair use, consumers and licensees as part of their duties." What? Consider consumers? When would Congress ever do that?
- And, of course, Issa seeks to substitute his own OPEN bill. That would definitely be a big step forward towards getting rid of the problems of SOPA, but there's no way that amendment passes.
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: amendments, ben quayle, darrell issa, hank johnson, jared polis, jason chaffetz, jim sensenbrenner, lamar smith, sopa, zoe lofgren
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
This wouldn't be the first time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Circumvention
If a foriegn country to use the same censorship mechanisms as the US then circumvention tools become magically legal again!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Circumvention
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Circumvention
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Did you see this?
"Companies like Google have made billions by working with and promoting foreign rogue websites so they have a vested interest in preventing Congress from stopping rogue sites."
Nice.. who is lying about what now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Did you see this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Did you see this?
The worst part? It's utter bullshit. Yet, a member of Congress is spreading this FUD as if it's fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Did you see this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Did you see this?
Oh, wait, the only datasets are from the USCoC, which is a lobbying group.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Did you see this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Did you see this?
First: a "questionable" site is not even close to being a "rogue foreign website." The RIAA considers YouTube to be a "questionable" site, for example.
Second: Google does not make "50% of each side." They take money only when users actually click on the ads, which nobody does.
Third: Google voluntarily stops serving advertisements to sites that it considers rogue sites. That's why none of the pirate sites use them. The Pirate Bay, for example, does not use Google.
Fourth: If you added up all of the ad money that changes hands through every single pirate website, across the globe, there's no way it would add up to "billions of dollars." People simply don't make very much money through online advertising. For-profit rogue sites make their money somewhere else, like by actually selling goods, or (in the case of sites like Ninjavideo) charging for premium membership.
I'm sure some foreign rogue websites slip through the cracks. But the amount that Google makes from them wouldn't pay the salary of one of their janitors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Did you see this?
I used "questionable" to be polite. Google adwords is the easiest way to turn illegal activities into money, especially if you can play the "We don't host the content" bullshit. While Google is aggressive at killing some accounts, they are incredibly lax at times - the old "too big to police" issue.
"Second: Google does not make "50% of each side." They take money only when users actually click on the ads, which nobody does."
Remarkably, Google ads do get clicked, even on the worst of websites. Each click, Google gets 50% of the income. Now, if the pirate or illegal sites are also playing the game of click arbitrage (buying low cost general term clicks, and sending them through to pages with narrowly focused, expensive per click terms), Google would make 50% on sending the surfer, and 50% on the resulting expensive click.
Many Google terms are priced in the dollars per click range, and smart site owners will target their sites to get those keywords and get those ads. A few clicks a day can make a site very profitable. Even if the click rate is low, if you can get enough eyeballs through on the basis of pirated material to attract them, you can make a good living.
"Third: Google voluntarily stops serving advertisements to sites that it considers rogue sites. That's why none of the pirate sites use them. The Pirate Bay, for example, does not use Google."
This is true. Google has been good at dealing with removing torrent sites, mostly when they are notified (via DMCA) of issues with a site. However, many of the advertisers on these sites are doing click arbitrage using Google, so indirectly, they are still making money off of it.
"Fourth: If you added up all of the ad money that changes hands through every single pirate website, across the globe, there's no way it would add up to "billions of dollars.""
This is just not true. TPB alone was (a couple of years back) charging $50k a month for ad space, with multiple spaces available (I know, because someone I know with was buying space for their company for a while). That is a single site. Many of them are selling "premium" downloads, or selling that right off to third party companies. It's not hard to picture a billion plus worldwide. Heck, Megaupload does 50 million users a day. You don't think that Fat Kim is making a few dollars?
"I'm sure some foreign rogue websites slip through the cracks. But the amount that Google makes from them wouldn't pay the salary of one of their janitors."
Since Google is the default company for selling ad space for most people, and because they are often the targets of the click arbitrage and "washing" of traffic, they actually do make a fair bit of money directly or indirectly from rogue sites. Even if you accept it as 1% of their business (which would be really small) you are still looking at 10 million a year. That is a very well paid janitor!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Did you see this?
The way you paint it they don't even need to sell product just put the product online and split the millions from advertising with Google.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Did you see this?
It's always easy to make money breaking the law. Why isn't everyone doing it? Murder for hire pays well, I hear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Did you see this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Did you see this?
It's always easy to make money breaking the law. Why isn't everyone doing it? Murder for hire pays well, I hear.
Eh?
That's one of the stupidest things I've ever seen. It would be perfectly legal for the labels to do that with content that they own the rights too!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Did you see this?
Who said that the number one customer for drugs(i.e. studios, labels etc) are not doing that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Did you see this?
Yes - but the money comes from legit businesses that palce advertsing via Google. If the "rogue sites" did not exist then Google would simply place the ads elsewhere and get roughly the same revenue. If anyone is getting advantage from the "rogue sites" it is the companies that advertise with Google rather than Google itself. Are you accusing those companies - or do you just have an irrational hatred of Google (based on jealousy).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Did you see this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Did you see this?
ASCAP, BMI all extract money from people who do the work to give it to a minority who did nothing to deserve the money, the same goes for publishing and movies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Did you see this?
Yup, they leave the artists in debt while the label reaps the rewards. It's a blatant scam which should be outlawed. If anyone needs to be regulated, it's definitely the major corporations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The part about who pays fees is not broad enough
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Did you see this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Did you see this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reevalutate
This would be a great idea for this bill (likely many others too). We all know how fast things change on the Internet. Many of these provisions would likely NEED to be reevaluated after 5 years. Would these rules still be needed at all? Would technology have rendered some of these issues moot?
Forcing it to be looked at again in five years might respark debate, but it SHOULD. Many laws need to be debated and adjusted accordingly, especially when they affect something as nebulous and quickly changing as the Internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Reevalutate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The amendments proposed are of the type of leave the law on the books, but to remove any potential for enforcement, or to create such broad exceptions that everyone can avoid it.
Stupid politicians.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sounds like a politicians wet dream.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is just the judiciary committee. So, a lot more than 4/500. And there aren't 500 members of the house anyway.
Way to mislead and pretend opposition is less than you'd like to believe. Significant concerns by many members of the committee
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"The 111th United States Congress, in session from 2009�2010, consisted of 541 elected officials from 50 states, five territories, and the District of Columbia. It is the federal legislature of the United States of America, continuing an unbroken chain dating back to the 1st Congress in 1789.
The Senate has 100 members; the House of Representatives has 435 members and six non-voting delegates."
Sorry if I didn't get the split exactly right. Not like you to be fussy ass for a small number. Plus, it's a nice way of deflecting away from the fact that it's only a very few members who are trying everything under the sun to add amendments that would make the law toothless.
Nice play!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hypocrite much Masnick? The OPEN Act contains only a private right of action. I guess private right of action is only OK with you in a bill that is toothless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I've discussed the problems with OPEN elsewhere. Why must you pretend I support it.
What I do support is it's much narrower definitions that actually focus on worst of worst. But I guess you have to smear me because you have no facts on your side.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It figures you'd have an affinity for the stupidest human being on earth:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNZczIgVXjg
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Nothing's happened yet, though. Let's see what is left when this is all over and the debates and votes are done. At the very least it ought to be interesting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It figures that rather than actually discuss the issues, you'd throw out a random ad hom.
Is that really productive? I guess in your world, insults work when you don't have reality on your side. How sad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I was actually thinking more of election "debates" than techdirt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
this from the guy who made smear posts of each of the Bill's writers. Got it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Also, you technically did ignore the issues and just throw out an insult. Notice that he didn't smear each of the bill's writers. What he did was point out the hypocrisy of what they were doing (based on their own previous words and stances) and then pointed out the flaws in the bills and backed it up with evidence from much more reputable and legitimate (not to mention, unbiased) sources.
It's only bad when Mike and Google and others do it. When it's you, the studios/labels, etc it's perfectly okay. Got it. "Do as we say, not as we do. otherwise you're not playing fair, you big ol' meanie." This seems to be such a popular stance as of late. I find it hilarious that I do not actually hear children say that anymore, but adults do it on a regular basis. Kinda scary in a way too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It wasn't my post to start with. Further, Mike is the lucky guy who was smears the bill's authors a couple of weeks back already. He doesn't have a whole lot of moral high ground to stand on here.
"It's only bad when Mike and Google and others do it. When it's you, the studios/labels, etc it's perfectly okay. Got it. "
It's not good when either side of the debate does it. But those who claim the moral high ground shouldn't be there to start with, but if you look closely, you can see Mike covered in the muck he has been shovelling for the last couple of months. It's not pretty, it's just harder for people like you to see because you agree with him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You keep claiming I smeared the bill's authors, but you can't back that up because it's false. Pointing out *facts* and examples of hypocrisy is not a "smear" no matter how many times you pretend otherwise.
Is that really the best you've got?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Capuano
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Missed one thing
In other words, he's trying to sneak in a retroactive extension to copyright, but only for sound recordings.
Whether or not you think this might be a good idea (and it actually might be, in this rare case), it's a stupid idea to try to paste it onto this horrible bill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Missed one thing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Missed one thing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Missed one thing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Missed one thing
I'm not E. Zachary, but I'll answer this one.
Currently, pre-1972 sound recordings are covered by a patchwork of state laws: anti-bootleg laws, right of publicity laws, even criminal statutes. Needless to say, most don't include limitations like fair use, and they all cover different types of activities, and last for different periods of time.
By putting them all under the umbrella of federal copyright law, it would actually make things a lot simpler, and ironically, some music would actually enter the public domain sooner in some states.
That's why librarians and archivists are actually for putting these sound recordings under Federal copyright law. The major labels, on the other hand, are against it.
Like I said, it's a rare case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Missed one thing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Missed one thing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Missed one thing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Missed one thing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Missed one thing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Holy cow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am more than disgusted at Washington.
GO TO HELL !!! You corrupt buttheads deserve it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bad news, Good news
Good news a new Internet devoid of regulations will be built in its place and will probably last a few years before the lobbyists get their claws into regulating it to death again.
Repeat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So if the pornographers are doing something wrong then clearly some other law needs adjusting to prevent abuse by all groups including pornographers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]