How SOPA 2.0 Sneaks In A Really Dangerous Private Ability To Kill Any Website

from the scary dept

Fri, Dec 16th 2011 9:58am — Mike Masnick

I already wrote a big post about yesterday's SOPA markup day one. While we're moving forward on day two, I wanted to call out one key point that was really made clear by an amendment offered by Rep. Jared Polis late in the day yesterday, which hasn't received nearly enough attention. As you may recall, with the "manager's amendment" version of SOPA (i.e., SOPA 2.0), the "notice-and-shut off funding" section of the private right of action in Section 103 was removed. This was good, because we've seen how the notice-and-takedown provision of the DMCA has been widely abused.

However, what most people missed was that the bill effectively sneaks this back into the bill in a much worse form in Section 105, which supposedly grants "immunity" to service providers for taking voluntary action to stop infringement. The true impact of this section was only made clear by Rep. Polis' attempt to limit it, as he highlighted how this broad immunity would likely lead to abuse. That's because this section says that anyone who takes voluntary action "based on credible evidence": basically gets full immunity. Think about what that means in practice. If someone sends a service provider a notice claiming infringement on the site under this bill, the first thing every lawyer will tell them is "quick, take voluntary action to cut them off, so you get immunity." Even worse, since this is just about immunity, there are no counternotice rules or anything requiring any process for those cut off to be able to have any redress whatsoever.

This is scary.

Rep. Polis, quite reasonably sought to limit this section to avoid such a situation. As he noted, anyone can send in a notice under this section, and the service provider is likely to take action to keep immunity. That's super wide open for abuse.

The debate on this point was downright painful. Some of the others on the Committee insisted that Polis' interpretation of the section was wrong. But it's not. Rep. Ted Deutsch kept misreading the law, pretending that because it talks about the "actions" in earlier sections (that you can take to get immunity), it means that the conditions for those actions must be the same (i.e., there needs to be a court order). But the law doesn't say that at all. Others insisted that there needed to be a court order to get the immunity as well.

Let's put this simply: that's ridiculous. And wrong. Very wrong. And anyone who can think for two damn seconds would know it's wrong. You don't need immunity for obeying a court order. Because if you get a court order, you pretty much have to obey (or end up in court). But more to the point, this whole section is about "voluntary actions". Obeying a court order is not a voluntary action. If this section were just about cases where there's a court order, then it wouldn't make any sense at all. It clearly applies to voluntary actions outside of a court order.

The response from SOPA defenders was painful in its cluelessness. Rep. Watt more or less admitted that he thought Polis' interpretation was wrong, so he wouldn't support the amendment. That makes no sense. If Watt thinks the language already says that, what's the harm of clarifying that with the text of the Polis amendment? It makes no sense to refuse to do so. And if Watt and Deutsch really believe that the meaning of 105 is clear and doesn't need any amendments to clarify, they might want to talk to some actual legal experts, because they're analyzing the bill and reading it to say exactly as Polis interpreted it. And since this is a private right in the bill, if lawyers are already interpreting it that way, that means it'll get used that way. So why not clarify? It's mind-boggling.

Perhaps even more ridiculous was Rep. Howard Berman, who, in trying to agree with Watt and Deutsch, made the exact opposite argument and actually agreed with Polis, while claiming he didn't and using that agreement as a reason to vote against the amendment! I'm not joking. Berman pointed out that, contrary to Deutsch and Watt's claims, it made no sense to have an immunity section that only dealt with court orders for all the reasons we listed above. Basically, while Deutsch and Watt pretend that the section requires a court order, Berman proves that it doesn't... and then says that's why he's voting against the amendment. It really was a head smashing moment.

In the end, despite vigorous attempts by Polis and Rep. Lofgren to explain why this was so problematic, the Committee basically just ignored the whole thing and rejected the amendment. End result: SOPA 2.0 contains a crazy scary clause that's going to make it crazy easy to cut off websites with no recourse whatsoever. And this part isn't just limited to payment providers/ad networks -- but to service providers, search engines and domain registrars/registries as well. Yes. Search engines. So you can send a notice to a search engine, and if they want to keep their immunity, they have to take the actions in either Section 102(c)(2) or 103(c)(2), which are basically all of the "cut 'em off, block 'em" remedies. That's crazy. This basically encourages search engines to disappear sites upon a single notice. It encourages domain registries to kill domains based on notices. With no recourse at all, because the providers have broad immunity.

It's this kind of insanity that should terrify people about this bill moving forward.

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: copyright, immunity, jared polis, private right of action, sopa

148 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

The eejit (profile), 16 Dec 2011 @ 8:41am

So let's use it against the traitorous fucks. Guys, you know what to do. ROLL OUT!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- A Monkey with Atitude, 16 Dec 2011 @ 12:23pm
  
  Re:
  Yup, firest days it goes active, send letters to every ISP/Search Engine and say Whitehouse.gov and all the rest (Warner Brothers, Sony, Nintendo) are all infringing on my rights... And they must submit to keep immunity :)
  
  Take it and sux it megacorps your own rules used to screw you..
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2011 @ 10:07am

OW!

Mike, quit hitting us over the head already.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marcus Carab (profile), 16 Dec 2011 @ 11:06am
  
  Re:
  Mike, quit hitting us over the head already.
  
  This is a NEW development in an ONGOING story. Quit whining and go read some other site if you don't care enough to follow what's happening with SOPA.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2011 @ 4:54am
    
    Re: Re:
    It's not a new development. It's the same old that Mike has been whining about for months. It's a variation, but really the same old.
    
    Mike hates SOPA. He reminds us 50 times a day it seems. Ever heard of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf"? It's gotten to the point where it stopped being informative or even prompting lively debate, and has moved on to a discussion of entrenched positions. With so much of the same shit over and over, nobody is saying anything new.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Marcus Carab (profile), 17 Dec 2011 @ 11:28am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      It's not a new development. It's the same old that Mike has been whining about for months. It's a variation, but really the same old.
      
      Are you daft? The reps spent all day going through proposed amendments and debating the bill. The text of the bill has been changed. For those of us interested in SOPA, that's news. It would be absolutely insane if Mike didn't cover it (and I suspect whiny assholes like you would be here mocking him for giving up or not being a good blogger or something if he didn't, too)
      
      Seriously - if you don't care about SOPA, you are clearly on the wrong blog. Why are you still reading?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2011 @ 11:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It would be nice if Mike summed it up in one place and got it over with, instead of spending the day scaremongering with half a dozen or more stories. Look, even other posters are getting into it, check out the greenspan / SOPA post.
        
        Soon Mike (and friends) will be writing that SOPA harms the children and puts poison in out water, and is a tool of info-terrorists. It probably is responsible for the mortgage crisis too.
        
        "Seriously - if you don't care about SOPA, you are clearly on the wrong blog. Why are you still reading?"
        
        No, I am on the right blog - a room full of people who need to get out more and get a real life education. Think of it as being on par with trying to get people out of a cult (or to leave the Republican party).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        nasch (profile), 18 Dec 2011 @ 12:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It would be nice if Mike summed it up in one place and got it over with, instead of spending the day scaremongering with half a dozen or more stories.
        
        We know you would rather everyone kept quiet about SOPA.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2011 @ 10:08am

THE SKY IS FALLING.... THE SKY IS FALLING... bawk, bawk, bawk, baaaaaaawk

c'mon Masnick, you're getting feathers everywhere
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jeff (profile), 16 Dec 2011 @ 10:09am
  
  Re:
  and you're spewing shit everywhere...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2011 @ 10:10am
  
  Re:
  Well...that was...mature...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2011 @ 10:15am
    
    Re: Re:
    Pretty much sums up what Techdirt has become the last couple of months. The sky is falling. No talk of "better business models"... just talk of how existing content grifting business models will get hurt. It's the same sort of thing Mike accuses the labels of...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2011 @ 10:22am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      [citation needed]
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Ninja (profile), 16 Dec 2011 @ 10:31am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Shouldn't the damn entertainment industry be giving ideas too since it's their business?
      
      And Mike is writing about SOPA many times because it keeps coming back with more and more bizarre facts and absurdities. And if the thing is so bad that only stories about copyright abuse, lack of due process and Govt abuse of power pop up then you can see we truly have a problem.
      
      Also, Step-2.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2011 @ 10:32am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      What about the stories about The Humble Indie Bundle and Louis CK? These are just some I remembered off the top of my head.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2011 @ 10:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        But think of how much more money the Humble Indie Bundle and Louis CK could have made if they had the ability to shut down websites!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2011 @ 10:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        An axe can cut both ways. It doesn't care about the target.
        
        They might not make ANY money at all..,
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2011 @ 11:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Did you hear that wooshing sound?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 16 Dec 2011 @ 1:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        But think of how much more money the Humble Indie Bundle and Louis CK could have made if they had the ability to shut down websites!
        
        They might have made less. Pissing off your fans is no way create paying customers
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        TwentyTwo (profile), 16 Dec 2011 @ 2:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm no expert, but I think the comment above was sarcastic. Could be wrong of course.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 16 Dec 2011 @ 3:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You might be correct. Hard to tell lately.
        
        I think my Sarc-o-meter might need re-adjustment from all these SOPA threads.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - TtfnJohn (profile), 16 Dec 2011 @ 10:59am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      While you claim a bunch of "content grifting business models" care to actually name them? Other than search engines cause all they do is index what's out there and nothing more. (Enough about Google ads already as it's clear you know nothing about how they or other Web advertising models work.)
      So, who are they? Huh? Where are all these so called crooks?
      
      I'm starting to wonder if the grain from all the popcorn plants Hollywood sent you isn't mood altering, somehow.
      
      They must all be hiding under your bed or in your closet.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Dark Helmet (profile), 16 Dec 2011 @ 10:29am
    
    Re: Re:
    You mispelled "manure"...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btrussell (profile), 16 Dec 2011 @ 6:11pm
  
  Re:
  You are the ones crying the sky is falling.
  
  Why else are you pushing so hard for this bill? What are the stated reasons? Profits, jobs, organized crime, terrorism...
  
  Yes, you are crying that the sky is falling.
  Every accusation you people make is exactly what you are doing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
wallow-T, 16 Dec 2011 @ 10:12am

Imagine what the Church of Scientology will do with these powers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DogBreath, 16 Dec 2011 @ 10:39am
  
  Re:
  Ban every website showing Battlefield Earth and render an apology?
  
  Well, I guess every cloud does have a silver lining.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Loki, 17 Dec 2011 @ 8:41am
    
    Re: Re:
    Now if only the writers (and actors) for Batman and Robin would write an apology.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hephaestus (profile), 16 Dec 2011 @ 11:43am
  
  Re:
  Imagine what we can do to the Church of Scientology. ;)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Zimzat (profile), 16 Dec 2011 @ 4:01pm
  
  Re:
  There's a new variation of Godwin's Law now.
  
  The idea of Scientology using these laws is frightening.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Loki, 17 Dec 2011 @ 8:50am
    
    Re: Re:
    The idea of Scientology using these laws is frightening.
    
    That's the kicker, though. Everyone is so focused on how the RIAA/MPAA would/could use this, people (whether for or against this bill) aren't thinking about how other people would/could use this. The entertainment industry is going to be in for a very rude awakening when/if it actually forces this bill through.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Difster, 16 Dec 2011 @ 10:13am

Here's The Plan
As soon as this gets signed by the President, start generating fake letters from fake law firms representing whoever and starting abusing the process. Take everything down. Take down Amazon.com. Take down iTunes. Take down PayPal. Take down some of the little guys. Abuse it so bad that it gets national attention and MUST get reversed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DogBreath, 16 Dec 2011 @ 10:25am
  
  Re: Here's The Plan
  We finally know why the Mayan Calendar ends in 2012, as we sow the legal seeds of our own destruction.
  
  The old SOPA on a rope-a-dope ploy. Gets em every time.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2011 @ 10:26am
  
  Re: Here's The Plan
  i think this is the only sensible solution, but not amazon - hollywood stuff and the senators private stuff. is there a Batman sign for calling Anonymous?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - ..., 16 Dec 2011 @ 10:38am
    
    Re: Re: Here's The Plan
    If only, but then what would they do? Hack Congress? Doubtful, what we should do is think on our feet and do something ourselves the only way this will get national attention is if we take to the streets with our problems.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2011 @ 10:39am
    
    Re: Re: Here's The Plan
    ... is there a Batman sign for calling Anonymous?
    
    Not your personal army.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - A Monkey with Atitude, 16 Dec 2011 @ 12:27pm
    
    Re: Re: Here's The Plan
    know and have plans... oh the anarchy will be tasty to watch... i am hoping for something like the end of Fight Club!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Gibby, 19 Dec 2011 @ 2:01am
    
    Re: Re: Here's The Plan
    I think It's the Guy Fawkes mask.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Vic, 16 Dec 2011 @ 11:09am
  
  Re: Here's The Plan
  I really hope Anonymous are already collecting info on those supporting SOPA/PIPA web pages, their spouses' web pages, their kids' web pages, their pets' web pages, their grandparents' web pages. And as soon as .... Should be fun show to watch.
  
  Another course of action would be just mass exiting from the Internet, leaving all those companies that rely on the net for their profits completely dry...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2011 @ 11:17am
  
  Re: Here's The Plan
  Or take down government sites...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2011 @ 11:20am
  
  Re: Here's The Plan
  As soon as this gets signed by the President, start generating fake letters from fake law firms representing whoever and starting abusing the process. Take everything down. Take down Amazon.com. Take down iTunes. Take down PayPal. Take down some of the little guys. Abuse it so bad that it gets national attention and MUST get reversed.
  
  You should change your name to FUDster. SOPA is limited to FOREIGN sites, not DOMESTIC sites. Why can't you get that through your thick head.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2011 @ 11:40am
    
    Re: Re: Here's The Plan
    This again? Really - this bullshit has been called out how many times now and you trolls just keep on coming back with it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2011 @ 11:42am
    
    Re: Re: Here's The Plan
    a) That's not so clear, actually, and
    b) even if it is, it's not relevant to the fundamental issue
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The eejit (profile), 16 Dec 2011 @ 1:04pm
    
    Re: Re: Here's The Plan
    The Internet has no borders. Ergo, every site is both domestic and foreign at the same time.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Drak, 16 Dec 2011 @ 12:50pm
  
  Re: Here's The Plan
  Take down whitehouse.gov
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- fjpoblam, 16 Dec 2011 @ 7:35pm
  
  Re: Here's The Plan
  I think it's too bad that getting national attention does not necessarily guarantee its getting reversed.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- fjpoblam, 16 Dec 2011 @ 7:37pm
  
  Re: Here's The Plan
  I think it's too bad that getting national attention does not necessarily guarantee its getting reversed.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ninja (profile), 16 Dec 2011 @ 10:21am

Horror show
This hearing is a horror show. I'm honestly shocked. I thought only TD trolls were that clueless, idiotic and dumb.

Mike, how can you watch that and keep your mental health?

And Zoe, man, she's my hero. Polis and the others. They PARTICIPATE in that madness and retain their sanity...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
anonymous disenfranchised Dutch coward, 16 Dec 2011 @ 10:28am

funny
if you thought you knew what trolling was; think again. anonymous or 4chan don't need ddos anymore, just a convincing story and a good letterhead. the church of scientology should be very afraid. and yes mike can be a bit over the top now and then, but if you happen to follow other sites on this subject, you must know by now that this will happen. umg's latest action times ten. funny times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 16 Dec 2011 @ 10:32am

Other "Acts"
The Federal Reserve Act was passed in a similar manner--to cater to private interests while similarly completely ignoring wiser council and completely bypassing feedback from the public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anti-SOPA agent, 16 Dec 2011 @ 10:33am

Comment
I think the only way we can even get rid of this would be for someone to actually sue (if possible) the US congress itself for infringing on our freedom of speech. Once we got that out of the way then I doubt they would try something like this again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

average_joe (profile), 16 Dec 2011 @ 10:35am

Scary!!! LOL @ all the FUD, Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Miff (profile), 16 Dec 2011 @ 10:39am

I should anonymously write a stack of takedown letters against pretty much every popular website out there and toss 'em in a mailbox the day the bill passes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 16 Dec 2011 @ 10:43am

Kinda funny...
... how none of the pro-sopa folks here have responded to the actual analysis. Because they know it's true and they can't avoid the facts.

So out come the ad homs.

It would be funny if they weren't so intent on passing a bad bill that will do massive harm to the economy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2011 @ 11:29am
  
  Re: Kinda funny...
  Honest discourse with you or any of your unctuous fanboys has long been impossible. Every attempt is met by dismissal of studies and a shrill parade of horribles about what "might" happen. So it's kind of pointless wasting time on hardcore zealots. Much better use of time to get the best possible bill passed. You had your chance but it was a litany of no, no, no. Then.... finally... the Open Act. Too little, too late. Now deal with the consequences of intransigence. You play an all or nothing game, be prepared to be the ones to get the nothing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - average_joe (profile), 16 Dec 2011 @ 11:37am
    
    Re: Re: Kinda funny...
    Amen.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Marcus Carab (profile), 16 Dec 2011 @ 11:38am
    
    Re: Re: Kinda funny...
    Ummm... when you're debating whether or not proposed legislation is good, "what might happen" is kind of an important aspect to consider. You know, since the laws of time and space make it fundamentally impossible to say what WILL happen.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - nasch (profile), 16 Dec 2011 @ 4:51pm
    
    Re: Re: Kinda funny...
    You had your chance but it was a litany of no, no, no.
    
    When pretty much everything about the bill is awful, that is what's going to happen.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- average_joe (profile), 16 Dec 2011 @ 12:39pm
  
  Re: Kinda funny...
  ... how none of the pro-sopa folks here have responded to the actual analysis.
  
  I'll bite, Mike.
  
  Section 105 says that it provides immunity "only for taking the actions described in section 102(c)(2) or section 103(c)(2) with respect to an Internet site, acting in good faith and based on credible evidence . . . ."
  
  Sections 102(c)(2) and 103(c)(2) both refer "reasonable measures" to take "actions based on court orders."
  
  In sum, all Section 105 does is say that those parties that take reasonable measures to take action based on court orders are immune from liability. That's it.
  
  There's no need for all the FUD, Mike. If you want to be taken seriously, you really should calm down. Seriously, dude. You sound like a freaking nut job zealot.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - KevinJ (profile), 16 Dec 2011 @ 12:54pm
    
    Re: Re: Kinda funny...
    Then I have to ask you to further explain something.
    
    How does a court order equate to a voluntary action?
    
    If a court order is issued, you must comply or face penalties. As for a voluntary action, I'll just paste part of the dictionary.com definition for 'voluntary':
    
    4. Law.
    a. acting or done without compulsion or obligation.
    b. done by intention, and not by accident: voluntary manslaughter.
    c. made without valuable consideration: a voluntary settlement.
    
    So again, if you must do something or face consequences (via a court order) how is that considered voluntary?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - average_joe (profile), 16 Dec 2011 @ 1:01pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Kinda funny...
      Where are you getting the term "voluntary action"? That text does not appear in Section 105. It says "only for taking the actions described in section 102(c)(2) or section 103(c)(2)," and those sections specifically say they apply to "actions based on court orders."
      
      Section 105 clearly applies only to taking an action based on a court order. It's got nothing to do receiving an informal request and taking voluntary action. Mike is just making this shit up he's so desperate. He obviously lets his zealotry blind him.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - The eejit (profile), 16 Dec 2011 @ 1:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda funny...
        Well, what is credible evidence, then? Because I'm damn sure that an IP linking to the site isn't creidble evidence: it's crcumstantial at best.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - KevinJ (profile), 16 Dec 2011 @ 1:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda funny...
        Then I'll rephrase.
        
        Section 105 itself does not mention court orders either. In fact here is the part of section 105 mentioning sections 102 and 103:
        
        "for taking the actions described in section 102(c)(2) or section 103(c)(2) with respect to an Internet site, acting in good faith and based on credible evidence"
        
        Notice the part I put in bold, that's the part we're having a problem with. Instead of saying 'based on a court order' like sections 102 and 103 it instead says 'acting in good faith and based on credible evidence'. The legal experts that Mike mentioned in the article are concerned about this difference in phrasing. Their interpretation is that it does not require a court order. One of the main points of the Polis amendment was if section 105 really does require a court order, why not make that more clear? Why leave it phrased in such a way that legal experts, with far more experience than anyone on this site, interpret it in a way so different than you and other SOPA supporters are interpreting it?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 16 Dec 2011 @ 1:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda funny...
        That interpretation just doesn't jive with what the text says. You cut off the word "only." It says "only for taking the actions described in section[s] . . . ." And those sections only refer to complying with a court order. I agree that it could be made even more clear (and amending this wasn't a bad idea), but nonetheless the bill as it sits is perfectly clear that this "only" applies to parties who are complying with a court order. It's clear enough as is, but obviously there is no harm in making it even more clear. I'm sure this section will get looked at again. And there's certainly no need for all the "sky is falling" and "it's SCARY" nonsense from Mike.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 16 Dec 2011 @ 2:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda funny...
        Laws should never be faith-based. Especially not when it affects people's livelihoods.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Modplan (profile), 16 Dec 2011 @ 10:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda funny...
        The only reason you'd add the acting in good faith part is to override the earlier references to requiring a court order. It refers to taking actions described in x section likely for the sake of saving ink, whilst clarifying that this sections refers to site acting in good faith, as compared to one acting on a court order - this is the clearest and most logical reason for having a description like that. "Only" doesn't change this, it's merely a limitation to what actions can come under 105.
        
        Also, from the linked analysis:
        
        The first interpretation�allowing all entities to gain immunity for exercising any section 102 or 103 power, even in the absence of a court order�seems to be the clearest interpretation of section 105, as all other interpretations would render the inclusion of domain name registries, registrars, and depository institutions in section 105 nonsensical.
        
        But if the purpose of section 105 is to grant immunity to all listed providers for engaging in any of the actions described in sections 102 and 103, then why does SOPA list these different providers separately in earlier sections? There is a clear principle underlying the decision to include certain providers in section 102 but not in section 103. Section 103, after all, is potentially broader in scope: it requires certain providers to cut off access not just to primary foreign infringers but also to secondary inducers of such infringement and those who have taken steps to foster infringement. As a result, section 103 has been cabined to include only payment network providers and Internet advertising services. This limitation of section 103 to a narrower range of payment and advertising providers is consistent with the �follow the money� approach towards which SOPA has been evolving.
        
        Yet if section 105 immunizes non-financial providers�ISPs such as Comcast, search engines such as Yahoo, registrars such as Go Daddy, and others�from liability for blocking websites that may (or may not, given the loose evidentiary standard) be secondarily or tertiarily responsible for infringement, then section 105 effectively disregards the �follow the money� approach in favor of a kitchen-sink approach where numerous entities are encouraged to act as uncoordinated private enforcement officers.
        
        http://balkin.blogspot.com/2011/12/stop-online-piracy-act.html
        
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mike Masnick (profile), 17 Dec 2011 @ 12:37am
    
    Re: Re: Kinda funny...
    Section 105 says that it provides immunity "only for taking the actions described in section 102(c)(2) or section 103(c)(2) with respect to an Internet site, acting in good faith and based on credible evidence . . . ."
    
    Sections 102(c)(2) and 103(c)(2) both refer "reasonable measures" to take "actions based on court orders."
    
    Multiple legal scholars point out that there's nothing that makes it clear that it is only "based on court orders." It does not say that it only applies to the conditions of section 102(c)(2) or 103(c)(2), but the actions. The actions involve blocking, denying payment, etc.
    
    You're reading it wrong.
    
    And, even if you're reading it right -- then why are you against clarifying this section to make it clear that your interpretation is the accurate one. That's all Polis wanted.
    
    In sum, all Section 105 does is say that those parties that take reasonable measures to take action based on court orders are immune from liability. That's it.
    
    Again, multiple legal scholars who actually have graduated law school and worked in the real world note otherwise.
    
    And considering that this is a private action here, it's likely that many lawyers in the real world will also interpret it the way it's written (not the way you read it).
    
    So why not clarify?
    
    There's no need for all the FUD, Mike. If you want to be taken seriously, you really should calm down. Seriously, dude. You sound like a freaking nut job zealot
    
    I sound like a "freaking nut job zealot" for echoing the concerns of a well respected Congressman and multiple respected legal scholars? Really?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - average_joe (profile), 17 Dec 2011 @ 4:52am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Kinda funny...
      No, Mike. You sound like a freaking nut job zealot because you have gone completely over the edge since SOPA dropped. No one is freaking out or being more insane about this than you. No one. You are the biggest SOPA whiner on the planet.
      
      I don't care how many legal scholars you have. It's one sentence, written in English. You don't have to be a Yale scholar to read it and understand it. It's a huge twist and stretch of the English language to read it the way you are.
      
      Yes, it refers to the "actions" taken in those two sections. But those actions all occur PURSUANT TO A COURT ORDER. You cannot escape the clear import of the text that says it provides immunity ONLY for those who take actions pursuant to those sections that apply only to those taking actions pursuant to a court order.
      
      I have no problem with clarifying it further, as I stated above. But it doesn't need clarifying since it's clear enough already.
      
      And no matter what it says, there is no reason for you to be so completely over the top with all of this. You really, really, really sound like a fucking idiot with all of the SOPA stuff. Seriously, dude. You don't have to be so extreme to get your message across--well, maybe you do. I know you're focusing of swaying the lowest common denominator, and they don't really respond well unless the rhetoric is turned up to 11. It's a shame that that's your target audience.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Mike Masnick (profile), 17 Dec 2011 @ 9:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda funny...
        No, Mike. You sound like a freaking nut job zealot because you have gone completely over the edge since SOPA dropped.
        
        Disagreeing with you while providing facts, figures and detailed explanations for why your position is wrong, is not going "completely over the edge."
        
        We can debate the issues as much as you like, but any time you know you have no argument you resort to ad homs. What's next? An average_joe foot stomping tantrum on an unrelated post?
        
        Yes, it refers to the "actions" taken in those two sections. But those actions all occur PURSUANT TO A COURT ORDER
        
        Again, as pointed out by multiple legal scholars and multiple congressional reps, nothing in section 105 says that that it refers to the actions pursuant to a court order. Just to the actions. You know damn well that it's possible to just refer to the actions without it lumping in the court order part.
        
        Hell, even Howard Berman, who's on your side and helped write the bill ADMITTED DURING THE MARKUP that it DOES NOT require a court order.
        
        And I'm the nut job?
        
        You really, really, really sound like a fucking idiot with all of the SOPA stuff
        
        I don't actually. I'm explaining my position. If I sound like "a fucking idiot" to you, it's because you (as you've shown in the past) have a very strong anti-Techdirt bias. But lots of people who I respect a lot more than you seem to think my analysis is pretty spot on.
        
        Seriously, dude. You don't have to be so extreme to get your message across
        
        Who's more extreme? Me? Who cites the sections of the bill, and explains why it's a problem and how it will cause problems, while citing legal scholars? Or you, who immediately calls me "a freaking nut job" and "a fucking idiot"?
        
        I would suggest that your anyone of reasonable intelligence can figure out for themselves who's being honest and direct here, and who's "freaking out" and exaggerating.
        
        Unlike you, however, I won't presume to speak for everyone else.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 17 Dec 2011 @ 11:19am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda funny...
        What makes you a nut job is your reaction to it. Look at the headline and the subheading (Scary!) and your ridiculously aggressive framing of the issue. All you have to do is say, "Look, that section could be worded better so as not to confuse. Maybe we should look at it closer." Instead, you come out with both FUD guns blazin'. It's the ridiculous, over the top presentation of the issue that makes you a nut job, not the fact that you have a good point that's worth looking at. CALM THE FUCK DOWN, MIKE. Seriously, dude.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Kenneth Michaels, 19 Dec 2011 @ 1:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda funny...
        Mike, we need to bring up section 105 again and again. It is very dangerous. Please. Regards, Ken
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Karl (profile), 18 Dec 2011 @ 6:01pm
    
    Re: Re: Kinda funny...
    In sum, all Section 105 does is say that those parties that take reasonable measures to take action based on court orders are immune from liability. That's it.
    
    You are really reaching here, Joe.
    
    For one thing, the former title of Sections 104 (the pre-markup version of 105) was "Immunity For Taking Voluntary Action Against Sites Dedicated To Theft Of U.S. Property." That version referenced the same definitions and actions, yet the text of both versions is the same.
    
    For another thing, if 105 was really to be contingent on a court order, why on Earth would it include the language "acting in good faith and based on credible evidence?" If you're acting as a result of a court order, then this would be completely irrelevant.
    
    Finally, if what you said is the right interpretation, then the bill should remove Section 105 entirely, since service providers et. al. are already immune from liability for actions resulting from court orders. It's in (the new version's) Section 104(b)(2):
    Limit On Liability Of Entities. �
    Subject to paragraph (1), any entity served with a copy of an order under sections 102(c) or 103(c), any entity described in section 101(20)(B), and any director, officer, employee, or agent of any such entity, shall not be liable for any acts reasonably designed to comply with such order or reasonably arising from such order, and no cause of action shall lie in any Federal or State court or administrative agency against such an entity, or director, office, employee or agent thereof, for such an act.
    
    The only possible way to interpret Section 105 is that it refers to voluntary actions.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - average_joe (profile), 18 Dec 2011 @ 6:32pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Kinda funny...
      If they consciously removed the word "voluntary," then that indicates a desire to not cover voluntary actions. So that cuts against your argument.
      
      I read it that if they are following the court order while acting in good faith and based on credible evidence, then they are covered. A court order would tell them what action to take in general, while this section explains how they must act to be given immunity for their specific actions while carrying out the order.
      
      Your argument about 104(b)(2) is actually pretty tight. Good job.
      
      Either way, I think the argument below that Section 230 has a similar provision (as does the DMCA if I recall correctly) is right on. Chances are these entities wouldn't be liable anyway for cutting off parties that are abusing their services (they likely have terms of service that say just that), so it's not a big deal to say they are immune per se for taking voluntary actions.
      
      Trying to paint this as "scary" is idiotic FUD.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Karl (profile), 18 Dec 2011 @ 10:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda funny...
        Either way, I think the argument below that Section 230 has a similar provision (as does the DMCA if I recall correctly) is right on.
        
        Section 230, as others (including you, I believe) have pointed out, does not apply to intellectual property.
        
        And, no, the DMCA safe harbors do not have a similar provision. There is a limit on liability for taking down content, but it is subject to 512(g)(2), which lays out explicit rules about it.
        
        (Also of note: both those provisions target specific content, whereas SOPA and PROTECT IP target entire websites.)
        
        Trying to paint this as "scary" is idiotic FUD.
        
        Please tell me why it wouldn't play out exactly as Mike said it would.
        
        Incidentally, if you need an example of how and why he is right, consider this: nothing in the DMCA says that sites are liable for infringement if they do not follow the notice-and-takedown process. In this sense, obeying 512 is entirely voluntary. In theory, you could disregard 512 altogether, and still not be liable for infringement.
        
        Now, how many sites do you know about that intentionally do not follow 512? How many judges do you know that have decided that a site did not follow the DMCA, yet was not liable for infringement?
        
        The situation that Mike describes is exactly what will happen if this bill passes. Getting entire websites blacklisted from search engines, advertisers, or registrars will be about as easy as sending a notice or two, and those entities will block them, for exactly the same reason they follow the notice-and-takedown procedure right now. Except under SOPA, they won't even have to follow 512(g)(2).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 19 Dec 2011 @ 2:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda funny...
        I appreciate the response. I must admit that your argument is persuasive. I've read the linked-to article on the Balkin blog as well. I was reading Section 105 differently--and apparently wrongly--and I'm happy to admit it. I wish I had caught that part of the markup debate so I could have heard what was said.
        
        Your example of how this would play out doesn't strike me as a problem that can't exist already. What's stopping private parties from sending informal requests now? And who says this isn't already happening (I don't pretend to know, but I wouldn't be surprised to hear this happens all the time). As I said above, these companies can already terminate services in good faith without liability--it most likely says exactly that in their terms of service. And the point about the CDA was not the fact that IP is exempt, but that providers have immunity in the CDA context for good faith terminations, and that's not a problem. I just don't buy the parade of horribles that you guys are trying to sell here.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        nasch (profile), 20 Dec 2011 @ 8:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda funny...
        Your example of how this would play out doesn't strike me as a problem that can't exist already. What's stopping private parties from sending informal requests now? As I said above, these companies can already terminate services in good faith without liability--it most likely says exactly that in their terms of service.
        
        That's true, but a statute would be a much stronger thing to rely on than a TOS document. Without SOPA there is some chance they could get in trouble for terminating services, and no particular reason to do so since there's no framework indicating that they should. With SOPA, if they have one of these notices they're faced with potentially huge liability if they don't comply, and definitely none if they do. So obviously the incentive is to take down first and ask questions later, if ever.
        
        Furthermore, the law would also cover them from a PR perspective. It's much easier to tell customers, investors, the public, etc that "SOPA made us do it" than "we decided it would be best to cut off this customer's service". In the former case, the anger is (partially) redirected at Washington, while in the latter it's squarely at the service provider.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2011 @ 10:45am

I'm not sure what's more offensive, SOPA or the hermanlaw.com ads on this site that use Penn State as the eye-catcher.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2011 @ 10:45am

OPEN has this too
That Polis is a sharp guy.

Issa & Wyden's OPEN bill has a clause granting immunity for voluntary action too. Let's hope they take it out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 16 Dec 2011 @ 10:47am
  
  Re: OPEN has this too
  That Polis is a sharp guy.
  
  He's a tech geek who ran a super successful internet company. He knows what this bill will do.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2011 @ 11:31am
  
  Re: OPEN has this too
  Issa & Wyden's OPEN bill has a clause granting immunity for voluntary action too. Let's hope they take it out.
  
  It will never see the light of day.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2011 @ 10:49am

I hope this passes and I hope the first thing they shut down is TechDirt. Silencing Mike Massnick is probably at the top of their to do list.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- NetworkAdmin, 16 Dec 2011 @ 10:53am
  
  Re:
  Good thing that SUPPOSED to be unconstitutional. Or do you support the banning of free speech as well as anti-piracy?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jeff (profile), 16 Dec 2011 @ 10:55am
  
  Re:
  Care to explain your hate?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2011 @ 10:55am
  
  Re:
  http://www.techdirt.com/rtb.php?tid=100000000
  
  would be a lot cheaper if that was even remotely on anyone's agenda
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2011 @ 10:58am
    
    Re: Re:
    He wants Mike's silence for free.
    
    He's, what some people would call, a freetard.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - btr1701 (profile), 16 Dec 2011 @ 11:22am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      > He's, what some people would call, a freetard.
      
      Creative use of the comma there!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jeff (profile), 16 Dec 2011 @ 10:56am
  
  Re:
  Care to explain your hate?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2011 @ 11:33am
  
  Re:
  I hope this passes and I hope the first thing they shut down is TechDirt. Silencing Mike Massnick is probably at the top of their to do list.
  
  Are you kidding? He's seen as the clown prince. No way buffoonery gets censored. It's far too much fun laughing at his absurdity.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Marcus Carab (profile), 16 Dec 2011 @ 11:42am
    
    Re: Re:
    ...says the guy who yesterday insisted that this debate wasn't about "the real world"
    
    having fun on mars?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2011 @ 6:25pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      ...says the guy who yesterday insisted that this debate wasn't about "the real world"
      
      having fun on mars?
      
      If you think inside the Beltway is the real world, you're as deluded as both of the people who believe you have any creative talent. As Chubby discovered on his trip to Washington, it's an alternate reality.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The eejit (profile), 16 Dec 2011 @ 1:11pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Says the guy who consistently refuses to not only their name about, but also refuses to disclose any informatiopn at all.
    
    Sopa will force user-generated content sites to withdraw their anonymity mechanisms, meaning that this person will be revealed, not only as a hypocrite, but as a buffoon who signed their own death warrant, so to speak.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2011 @ 11:43am
  
  Re:
  But it's only supposed to target FOREIGN websites.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bri., 16 Dec 2011 @ 10:57am

Online Academic discourse just pulled a hamstring....
I'm really glad that there weren't copyright laws like SOPA when Pythagoras, Archimedes, and Musa al Khwarizmi respectively developed the basics of geometry, physics, and algebra 'cause Euler, Newton and Einstein would be jailed for the theft of intellectual property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2011 @ 10:59am

If I'm not mistaken I can file a take down notice with the service provider of the web pages of any member of Congress who votes for this.

A taste of their own medicine would be good for them!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2011 @ 11:34am
  
  Re:
  If I'm not mistaken I can file a take down notice with the service provider of the web pages of any member of Congress who votes for this.
  
  A taste of their own medicine would be good for them!
  
  Apparently you're slow or something. The bill is limited to actions against foreign sites.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - A Monkey with Atitude, 16 Dec 2011 @ 12:36pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I see your way of debate is ....Attack... Untruth...
    
    So let me do this slowly, as we know your fingers to far in the IP Industries Collective ASS...
    
    Proof or GTFO... Simple and to the point... having watched and read a lot of the cow squeeze that is SOPA it is nowhere clear or exact its Foreign only... FFS you must be dumb...
    
    IF you can only make money by having a monopoly, do us a favor, excuse yourself from the human race so we can actually move forward...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2011 @ 11:20am

Why can't this tool be used to issue take down notices against the MPAA, the RIAA, the House and the Senate?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btr1701 (profile), 16 Dec 2011 @ 11:23am
  
  Re:
  > Why can't this tool be used to issue take down
  > notices against the MPAA, the RIAA, the House
  > and the Senate?
  
  It's going to be.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2011 @ 11:35am
  
  Re:
  Apparently you're slow or something. The bill is limited to actions against foreign sites.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2011 @ 11:28am

what is going to stop me from using this against the politicians web sites? or against major retailers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2011 @ 11:35am
  
  Re:
  Apparently you're slow or something. The bill is limited to actions against foreign sites.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2011 @ 11:51am
    
    Re: Re:
    Apparently you're slow or something. You keep repeating yourself instead of adding anything of value to the discussion.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The eejit (profile), 16 Dec 2011 @ 1:13pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Your copypasta is showing. You might not want to do that - you might be taken down on copyright grounds.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - crade (profile), 16 Dec 2011 @ 1:42pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Major retailers have foreign sites.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Loki, 17 Dec 2011 @ 9:21am
    
    Re: Re:
    Then we just wait for Canada to pass the companion bill and the Canadians can shut them down for us. After all, US sites are foreign to Canada.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2011 @ 11:32am

Why can't this tool be used to issue take down notices against the MPAA, the RIAA, the House and the Senate?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2011 @ 11:44am
  
  Re:
  It can, even though that same AC is going to reply with "Apparently you're slow or something. The bill is limited to actions against foreign sites."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2011 @ 11:49am

It doesn't look nearly as broad as portrayed.
Umm... I'm an opponent of SOPA (even took some heat about my opposition when I was with some friends last night,) but I read "such action" as referring to "ceases or refuses to provide services under subsection (a)." That is to say, they are given immunity from liability that results from the takedown, not the sort of broad immunity from prior actions as Masnick reads it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- MAJikMARCer (profile), 16 Dec 2011 @ 12:12pm
  
  Re: It doesn't look nearly as broad as portrayed.
  "I was just following orders. It's not my fault."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 16 Dec 2011 @ 1:14pm
  
  Re: It doesn't look nearly as broad as portrayed.
  Do you know how much shit goes down when someone "just followin' orders, SIR." gets along?
  
  There's a quotation from Winston Churchill:
  
  "The only way for evil to win is for good men to do nothing."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ken (profile), 16 Dec 2011 @ 11:56am

Failure to volunteer will incur heavy penalties.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tom Sydnor, 16 Dec 2011 @ 1:59pm

Pssst, Mike, they already snuck that into 47 U.S.C. sec 230...
Well, Mike, I see that the quality of your analyses has not improved in my absence. So let me help you yet again.

47 U.S.C. sec 230(c)(2)is an existing provision of the Communications Act generally considered to be foundational by many technologists. It already states:

"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of--
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1) [subparagraph (A)].

Section 230 is more than broad enough to cover actions taken to deter piracy as "otherwise objectionable." Consequently, I conclude that the main effect of the provision that has you so frightened would be to clarify that a similar result would follow as to efforts undertaken to deter counterfeiting by intermediaries not qualifying for Section 230 protection.

Before hyperventilating again, you might also consider checking the Terms of Service of intermediaries: like access, search, advertising, and payment processing services. Almost all of them will reserve the right to terminate service to users engaged in illegal acts.

And yet--somehow--the Internet has survived....

--Tom Sydnor
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- average_joe (profile), 16 Dec 2011 @ 2:19pm
  
  Re: Pssst, Mike, they already snuck that into 47 U.S.C. sec 230...
  Well done. Please don't be a stranger. We need more level-headed people around here. Mike's really gone over the edge lately--lost all credibility and objectivity. It's amusing and frustrating at the same time.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mike Masnick (profile), 17 Dec 2011 @ 12:53am
    
    Re: Re: Pssst, Mike, they already snuck that into 47 U.S.C. sec 230...
    We need more level-headed people around here
    
    When anyone refers to Tom as "level-headed" it makes all of DC laugh.
    
    Mike's really gone over the edge lately--lost all credibility
    
    I love it when people assume what my "credibility" is. If you saw the list of folks who called this week asking for advice, you'd be shitting yourself.
    
    But that's when I know AJ is getting desperate. When he has to declare that no one takes me seriously.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - average_joe (profile), 17 Dec 2011 @ 4:57am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Pssst, Mike, they already snuck that into 47 U.S.C. sec 230...
      I don't take you seriously because you're a ridiculous person. You jump to conclusions. You have the worst case of confirmation bias I've ever seen. You have no objectivity. You lie and manipulate. I could go on and on...
      
      You may fool others, Mike, but you don't fool me. I wouldn't trust you to mow my grass.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Jay (profile), 17 Dec 2011 @ 10:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Pssst, Mike, they already snuck that into 47 U.S.C. sec 230...
        I don't take you seriously because you're a ridiculous person. You jump to conclusions. You have the worst case of confirmation bias I've ever seen. You have no objectivity. You lie and manipulate. I could go on and on...
        
        Then why do you keep visiting this site, making disparaging remarks, make an ass of yourself and your pro-SOPA position, and make your argument that much weaker with ad hominem attacks?
        
        It's a lot easier to believe Mike and his observations when you do nothing credible for yourself in regards to actually debating a topic.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2011 @ 7:38am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Pssst, Mike, they already snuck that into 47 U.S.C. sec 230...
      I love it when people assume what my "credibility" is. If you saw the list of folks who called this week asking for advice, you'd be shitting yourself.
      
      That's a commentary on their level of desperation, not your insights and wisdom. I never dreamed the other side was in such a full-blown panic.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - btrussell (profile), 17 Dec 2011 @ 8:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Pssst, Mike, they already snuck that into 47 U.S.C. sec 230...
        Who is trying to rush things here?
        
        I think that tells us who is really panicking!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2011 @ 3:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pssst, Mike, they already snuck that into 47 U.S.C. sec 230...
        This is in retaliation for the dilatory tactics (70 amendments). Doubtful that this thing can be completed before late january, but some key amendments will be disposed of this week.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 17 Dec 2011 @ 3:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pssst, Mike, they already snuck that into 47 U.S.C. sec 230...
        Dilatory is right. And give me a break with Lofgren's idiotic making them read the whole thing out loud for an hour. No wonder the rest of the committee didn't want to talk about this issue with 105 seriously. The opponents are coming on so hard and so strong that it's working against them. If they have good ideas about the bill, then share them. But give me a break with all the ridiculous amendments that are clearly brought only for the purpose of stalling.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 16 Dec 2011 @ 3:02pm
  
  Re: Pssst, Mike, they already snuck that into 47 U.S.C. sec 230...
  Wan't that added in response tot he DMCA? And wasn't that only after massive political pressure? And hasn't that been abused massively by certain entities?
  
  The wording is vague enough that it worries a lot of people in SOPA. SOPA has DNS blocking "as a final resort" now. How long do you think it will be before UMG or Sony BMG decide they don't like site X and go to that provision first? And before you say anything, that's already happened.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2011 @ 6:57pm
  
  Re: Pssst, Mike, they already snuck that into 47 U.S.C. sec 230...
  So why do we need new laws?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2011 @ 6:59pm
  
  Re: Pssst, Mike, they already snuck that into 47 U.S.C. sec 230...
  So if the law is already in the books why have new ones?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 17 Dec 2011 @ 12:51am
  
  Re: Pssst, Mike, they already snuck that into 47 U.S.C. sec 230...
  Well, Mike, I see that the quality of your analyses has not improved in my absence. So let me help you yet again.
  
  Hi Tom! It's always lovely when you come visit and make such blatantly false statements.
  
  Section 230 is more than broad enough to cover actions taken to deter piracy as "otherwise objectionable."
  
  Sorry, Section 230 specifically does not apply to intellectual property law. Didn't read that far down?
  
  Also note the key difference in Section 230, which was designed for a very different purpose: to allow companies to freely block content that *they* found objectionable. Section 230 refers to content that the *service provider* finds objectionable. Section 105 of SOPA, on the other hand, refers to what happens if you receive "evidence." That's what makes 105 a notice and takedown provision, while it doesn't apply at all to 230.
  
  Before hyperventilating again, you might also consider checking the Terms of Service of intermediaries: like access, search, advertising, and payment processing services. Almost all of them will reserve the right to terminate service to users engaged in illegal acts.
  
  Again, totally unrelated to the issue at hand.
  
  And yet--somehow--the Internet has survived....
  
  (1) No one said the internet wouldn't survive. We worry about the overall impacts of it breaking *how things have been done* and thus *hindering innovation* but no one has said it kills off the internet. When you resort to outright lies, we know the Tom Sydnor who kills think tanks with his crazy claims has arrived on the scene...
  
  (2) Again, the immunity in Section 230 is totally different and unrelated to the immunity in Section 105. It's a sleazy lobbying trick to pretend they're talking about the same thing.
  
  Planning to quote Lessig out of context again any time soon, Tom?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kenneth Michaels, 16 Dec 2011 @ 3:52pm

Thank you Mike
Mike, Thanks for pointing out section 105 of the amended bill. It is poorly written and very confusing for the reasons provided in the link in your article.

You are doing the right thing by asking "what could possibly go wrong?" Those who suggest otherwise are simply wrong.

Interpretation of these laws is often complicated, and for the reasons provided in the link in the article, section 105 may actually introduce some private rights, or so it seems. It at least requires clarification.

Thanks again for pointing me to this information and keep up the good work.

Regards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Kenneth Michaels, 16 Dec 2011 @ 4:19pm
  
  Re: Thank you Mike
  It is clear that some of the comments are from people tasked with countering Mike and marginalizing him. These people probably work for the RIAA/MPAA et al. Clearly they believe Mike is someone to contend with otherwise they would not put so much effort into the comments.
  
  This article (and especially the linked article) raises some very good points that should not be dismissed. What's the rush? Lets get the legislation right.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
MIMi, 16 Dec 2011 @ 4:40pm

Petition S.O.P.A
Please sign this petition to STOP S.O.P.A:
http://www.change.org/petitions/congress-do-not-pass-the-sopa-bill
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Violated (profile), 16 Dec 2011 @ 5:25pm

So long.
Just to warm you in the United States that if this SOPA bill passes then we in Europe are cutting the cables!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
btrussell (profile), 16 Dec 2011 @ 6:12pm

"It's this kind of insanity that should terrify people about this bill moving forward."

It's this kind of insanity that should terrify people about their so-called representatives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Robert Freetard, 16 Dec 2011 @ 10:32pm

So what is to prevent "someone" from applying these "remedies" the MGM/UA et:al?

It'd teach them a lesson they'd probably rather not learn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2011 @ 6:45pm
  
  Re:
  You couldn't take down "MGM/UA et:al" with SOPA. That's why no one takes any of this FUD seriously.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2011 @ 6:50am

don't take down Amazon, go after the Senators and Reps that pass this thing, and then go after the FBI, the White House
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btrussell (profile), 17 Dec 2011 @ 8:50am
  
  Re:
  Why not?
  
  They had no problem taking down wikileaks. Removing purchased e-books.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
gary (profile), 17 Dec 2011 @ 3:08pm

How about we just go to kill the bill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2011 @ 3:17pm

Re:
ITT: RIAA/MPAA trolls trying to stifle discussion. You're not fooling anyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wvhillbilly (profile), 17 Dec 2011 @ 5:50pm

I see this bill as nothing less than an open door for all manner of abuse.It must be stopped. There are better ways to deal with copyright infringement than opening up holes through which unscrupulous people have the potential to shut down any part of the Web they have an issue with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2011 @ 12:52pm

SOPA 2.0 (the "Manager's Amendment", which is what this article is about) does limit the "site blocking" to foreign web sites only.

http://judiciary.house.gov/news/12142011%20SOPA.html

It does affect US based sites in that US search engines must not provide links to the blocked foreign sites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SOPAPERA, 18 Dec 2011 @ 7:50pm

At least China still has free internet.
I'll just move my website to China if this gets passed. They let you upload anything you want as long as you don't try to cause political trouble on the mainland.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jamescameron, 30 Jun 2012 @ 11:42am
  
  Re: At least China still has free internet.
  If you want x then ask for 10x That seems to be SOPA. The other problem is that the intent is one thing, but the application of the resulting 'law' is quite another. Take anti-terrorism and Health and Safety|Platte daken| laws as a good example - the intent is perfectly sane, but the application to any number of totally un-intended situations is perverse. Remember that the law is an ass and see where legislation like SOPA will lead you.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jamescameron, 30 Jun 2012 @ 11:42am
  
  Re: At least China still has free internet.
  If you want x then ask for 10x That seems to be SOPA. The other problem is that the intent is one thing, but the application of the resulting 'law' is quite another. Take anti-terrorism and Health and Safety|Platte daken| laws as a good example - the intent is perfectly sane, but the application to any number of totally un-intended situations is perverse. Remember that the law is an ass and see where legislation like SOPA will lead you.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jamescameron, 30 Jun 2012 @ 11:42am
  
  Re: At least China still has free internet.
  If you want x then ask for 10x That seems to be SOPA. The other problem is that the intent is one thing, but the application of the resulting 'law' is quite another. Take anti-terrorism and Health and Safety|Platte daken| laws as a good example - the intent is perfectly sane, but the application to any number of totally un-intended situations is perverse. Remember that the law is an ass and see where legislation like SOPA will lead you.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jamescameron, 30 Jun 2012 @ 11:42am
  
  Re: At least China still has free internet.
  If you want x then ask for 10x That seems to be SOPA. The other problem is that the intent is one thing, but the application of the resulting 'law' is quite another. Take anti-terrorism and Health and Safety|Platte daken| laws as a good example - the intent is perfectly sane, but the application to any number of totally un-intended situations is perverse. Remember that the law is an ass and see where legislation like SOPA will lead you.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jamescameron, 30 Jun 2012 @ 11:42am
  
  Re: At least China still has free internet.
  If you want x then ask for 10x That seems to be SOPA. The other problem is that the intent is one thing, but the application of the resulting 'law' is quite another. Take anti-terrorism and Health and Safety|Platte daken| laws as a good example - the intent is perfectly sane, but the application to any number of totally un-intended situations is perverse. Remember that the law is an ass and see where legislation like SOPA will lead you.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2011 @ 8:51pm

A Thank You
Thank you very much for consisting monitoring and writing the obvious flaws directly written into and associated with PIPA and SOPA. Mike, if it isn't too late, perhaps you should write and editorial about how we, as concerned people, can organize a cohesive opposition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2011 @ 9:20am

Government's infringing on my rights.

I'm gonna send them a letter so they have to take the government down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
saeed, 2 Feb 2012 @ 8:55am

tanks
tanks for post
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
tobyyates, 29 Jun 2012 @ 11:26pm

Votetocracy
While I'm against SOPA and PIPA too, I'd recommend considering in greater depth the relationship between the "brain-churning," escapist "treat" and hardship. Not just climate change and viruses, but the economic hardships that affect many, particularly "old media" artists and journalists, whose industries the web has decimated. Perhaps the correlation is not just a mystical karmic balance. gevelwerken
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michael Miles, 1 Jul 2012 @ 12:42am

Your example of how this would play out doesn't strike me as a problem that can't exist already. What's stopping private parties from sending informal requests now? As I said above, these companies can already terminate services in good faith without liability--it most likely says exactly that in their terms of service.

That's true, but a statute would be a much stronger thing to rely on than a TOS document. Without SOPA there is some chance Opstijgend vocht
they could get in trouble for terminating services, and no particular reason to do so since there's no framework indicating that they should. With SOPA, if they have one of these notices they're faced with potentially huge liability if they don't comply, and definitely none if they do. So obviously the incentive is to take down first and ask questions later, if ever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
saeeed, 16 Feb 2013 @ 11:53am

tanks
tanks
tanks for post
[ link to this | view in chronology ]