The Cool Kid said:
The Random One said:
[
Nope. Any site that allows people to post freely can be accused under SOPA, as long as someone in there posts anything. Under DMCA people hosting that content have to act to remove it as soon as they are notified of such; under SOPA they are commiting a felony if they fail to police the site to stop it from happening, which is unfeasible on sites that have millions of users like Facebook and YouTube.
And the main danger is that a claimant doesn't need to bring up any proof that the infringing content is indeed damaging their sales; an overzealous music executive could shut down the Escapist over the intro and outro songs of the earlier Zero Punctiation episodes, and it's more likely than not that they eventually will, due to how copyright laws in the US work.
The only result of this bill will be a massive exodus of any technology-based company from the Us to escape from it, and as that's pretty much the only sector of the US economy that's still growing that will pretty much throw the country under the bus. Especially now that there's already a different crisis going on with the US as one of its lynchpins.
Section 103.4 states that you need to provide evidence that the site is "dedicated to theft". Which part of the Bill suggests that any post on a forum could be accused of causing a site to be dedicated to theft?
And actually Section 103.5 states that the site can counter any actions taken if it, under penalty of perjury, has good faith in that it is not a site dedicated to theft.
Wherever you have gotten your information from is simply incorrect; have a read for yourself:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr3261ih/pdf/BILLS-112hr3261ih.pdf
Okay, so I just read it again to be completely sure. The section you describe (103.B.4.iii) absolutely does not lay out any evidentiary rules. The actual text is as follows:
(iii) Identification of the specific facts
to support the claim that the Internet site,
or portion thereof, is dedicated to theft of
U.S. property and to clearly show that im-
mediate and irreparable injury, loss, or
damage will result to the holder of the in-
tellectual property right harmed by the ac-
tivities described in subsection (a)(1) in
the absence of timely action by the pay-
ment network provider or Internet adver-
tising service.
This is highly unclear, completely and indefensibly subjective, and this is not to mention that this notice doesn't go to the infringing site; it goes to the ISP and payment providers, whose responsibilities at that point are for ISP's: remove access to the site; and for payment providers: to cease all financial relations with the site. Both of these must be taken within five days or the ISP and payment provider are held liable unless they make a counter claim.
I think one of the parts that may have confused you about this is that only AFTER action has been taken against the site, is it informed that a complaint has been made by a "Qualified Plaintiff" (which is similarly nebulous in definition). It is the perogative of the ISP or payment provider to inform the infringing site of action.
