US Chamber Of Commerce Appears To Argue That SOPA & PIPA Apply To NO Websites At All
from the figure-that-one-out dept
Yesterday, I was on a "panel" discussion at the Congressional Internet Caucus's "State of the Net" event. At some point, I believe we'll have some video of that, which we can post. However, at one point, moderator Tim Lordan asked panelist Steve Tepp, from the US Chamber of Commerce, about the claims that SOPA/PIPA only impact "foreign" sites, and argued that under the definitions in the bill sites like Google.ca or Amazon.co.uk would be subject to the bills, and thus they would effect the American companies who run them. Tepp insisted this wasn't true, because the bill only applies to "US-directed sites" and a site that is a .ca or .co.uk wouldn't be considered US-directed. However, First Amendment lawyer Marvin Ammori sensed a pretty obvious problem with that. If what Tepp argues is true, he's basically saying that SOPA and PIPA apply to no websites at all. Remember, supporters of the bills insist that they don't apply to .coms or .orgs or any other site using a TLD controlled by a US register. So that wipes out that batch of domains. But, here, Tepp now seems to be claiming that it also doesn't apply to any site with a country specific TLD... because those aren't US-directed. So... um... what's left?Indeed. It's this kind of duplicity that has people so fed up with the lobbyist/politician lies being spread about this bill by supporters. The language was written purposely, so that they could insist it won't actually do any of the awful things the bill clearly allows... while knowing full well that's exactly how the bill will be used (regularly) after it passes.First, the bills define US-directed site to mean almost any site that you can access in the US. PIPA does not have a definitive test, but it lets courts determine which sites are directed to the US based on several indicia, including whether the “Internet site has reasonable measures in place to prevent such goods and services from being accessed from or delivered to the United States.” (PIPA, page 48.) Meaning, if the site hasn’t blocked American users from accessing the site, then it’s US-directed. The whole point of the Internet, though, is that sites are globally available, and not blocked for particular countries. SOPA, on the House side, merely requires “minimum contacts” sufficient for personal jurisdiction, which is a very low standard that would touch most sites–as any law student would learn after reading the International Shoe case in the second week of Civil Procedure. (See SOPA, page 9).
Second, this argument is unconvincing because it suggests that the bills would cover zero sites in the whole world. If Amazon.co.uk and Google.ca are exempt from the bill, then so are ThePirateBay.co.uk or ThePirateBay.ca. The point of SOPA and PIPA, in theory, is to target foreign sites, who are defined based on having foreign domain names. So, the Chamber is saying, “Don’t worry Google.com won’t be subject to the bills because that’s not a foreign site.” Now it says, “Don’t worry, Google.ca won’t be subject to the bills because it’s not a US-directed site.” Does that mean neither MegaUpload.com or MegaUpload.ca is subject to the bill? By my count then, the bills don’t apply to any sites that have a domestic domain name nor do they apply to any sites that have a foreign domain name.
The Chamber is trying to convince us that the bills apply to zero websites and companies? They wouldn’t apply to MegaUpload.com or MegaUpload.ca, Google.com or Google.ca, ThePirateBay.org or ThePirateBay.fr?
This doesn’t strike me as highly convincing.Why would studios and labels spend millions trying to pass a bill that affects zero websites and companies?
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: blackouts, domestic sites, foreign sites, pipa, protect ip, protests, sopa, steve tepp
Companies: us chamber of commerce
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Logic 101:
That being said, let's then take the lazy road and not pass it--seeing as it's all the same anyhow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Logic 101:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Logic 101:
Wait a second...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Logic 101:
Personally I'd like to point them to the egress and tell them it's the computer lab.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where are all the PRO-SOPA/PIPA people
It proves they have been scared of us all along and knew if we fought we would win ! Its not over yet, and we all need to keep standing and keep fighting, but i hope we all remember the next time a Copy-tard comes calling... Meaningful debate, no problem... Shilltard propaganda...GTFO
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Where are all the PRO-SOPA/PIPA people
Proof they're paid shills, perhaps?
They're all away from their computers and doing their lobbying duties rather than trolling hard here on techdirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Where are all the PRO-SOPA/PIPA people
You are either with us...
Where have we heard that before.
Brought to you by propaganda. No longer just for dictators of third world nations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Where are all the PRO-SOPA/PIPA people
Who else is making that statement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Where are all the PRO-SOPA/PIPA people
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why not all? The whole thing was videotaped.
Post the whole thing.
Don't censor out parts of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Even if your assumed meaning turns out to be accurate, why would you equate editing with censorship? You don't know what is being left out, so you just jumped to the conclusion that something important is being left out instead of dead air time that people with ADD aren't going to want to sit through or meaningless moments that have nothing to do with the topic of the article?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When pirate sites start simply listing prices in euros or pounds, does that mean we'll have to blocking currency converters? Will Google be forced to make its currency converter not list dollars any more?
After all, U.S. pirates can't buy things like the freetards they are if they can't convert from euros.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Then follow it up with
Does that not break down to all sites that conduct business directed to residents of the United States a U.S.-directed site and there for a foreign Internet site. In which case any infringement for on it then becomes a `foreign infringing site' making any site able to have SOPA applied to it foreign or domestic?
Please someone school me in this that's my reading but I am not great on following all jargon. And we was told it only would affect Foreign Sites then we are being told it would not apply to any site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
1) A domain name being registered in a TLD (.co.uk for example) that isn't controlled by a U.S. entity
2) A site being accessible and usable by U.S. Citizens.
This is the point made in the article, and the point several of us made to an AC troll. If you argue it can't be used against certain "foreign sites" like google.co.uk, then what is it about them that is in any way immunised against SOPA? Because the standards in SOPA do not distinguish between sites hosted and owned in the U.S. that use a "foreign" domain name and sites outside the country that use a foreign domain name, which is also part of the reason the likes of thepiratebay.org doesn't come under SOPA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I have said from the first time I saw it that it was written so badly and broadly that nothing is immune from it no matter what they try to say. If it is not written clear and concise with no room for misinterpretation then it will be abused.
Scrap them and focus on the counterfeiting with clear and concise language, as that is something that has potential to harm U.S. citizens.
Innovate to cut back on infringement you will never remove it, so make it so easy, reasonably priced, and able to use when and where your customers want it legally that its point less to hunt down the infringing content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Did they even read the bills?
Their hostile, whiny reactions to the mildest questions demonstrate a profound lack of thinking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chris Dodd: Define foreign website as anything that is on the internet, problem solved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I got it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They are saying the bill does not target domestic TLDs by domestic owners because they can go after them with dubious, due processes-free ICE Operation In Our Sites-style takedowns.
They are saying it will not affect foreign TLD by domestic owners because they can go after their hosting if it is domestic or their money under some other law using tortured logic and hide it under national security.
Foreign TLD that is US-directed are not targeted so bit.ly is in the clear according the the US.
They are saying it will not affect domestic TLD or domestic payment processing, and domestic ad networks owned by foreign owners because the FBI can just take down their hosting under some other law using tortured logic and hide it under national security.
Of course, the elephant in the room is that US companies need to comply.
What all of this says to foreigners: investment in going after the US market, using US based payment processing, hosting, and ad networks is risky and at the whim of a bunch of incompetent bureaucrats using SOPA. Don't try to do business in the US unless you are a member of some international trade org. What a bunch of jingoist crap!
If you want your site to be bulletproof from all possible future US legislation, do everything: domain TLD, hosting, payment, ad network outside the US. Go USA!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pawn
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pawn
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait, this would be a good law
If anyone can find a bit of a film that even "sort of" infringes, or a song that "kind of" sounds like something not owned by the studio, they could file. Universal, EMI, etc. would have to have all of their web sites offline. Showing their movies, playing their songs would be a violation. As long as the case stays in court, they wouldn't get a dime. They all have foreign distributors, so they are in play. Death by a thousand paper cuts. Let them have their law and bury them with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pirate Bay
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here lies the truth about SOPA/PIPA that even TechDirt has yet to report: what MPAA, RIAA, and Hollywood execs do not want you to see.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzS5rSvZXe8
The truth behind why these big companies responsible for SOPA and PIPA are also responsible for piracy itself is far more insidious than even their outmoded business model.
Hint: can you say, do as I say so I can crush you under heel?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]