U.S. Congress Shelves SOPA

[Rabid Toilet]

Focus on section 103 parts 4, 5 and 6. The other Bills are available on the net so it's just a quick bit of google-ing to solve those mysteries.
Please tell me what is confusing about:

(1) DEDICATED TO THEFT OF U.S. PROPERTY.?An Internet site is dedicated to theft of
3 U.S. property if-

the U.S.-directed site is primarily designed or operated for the purpose of, has only limited purpose or use other than, or is marketed by its operator or another acting in concert with that operator for use in, offering goods or services in a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates- (I) a violation of section 501 of title 17, United States Code; (II) a violation of section 1201 of title 17, United States Code; or (III) the sale, distribution, or promotion of goods, services, or materials bearing a counterfeit mark, as that term is defined in section 34(d) of the Lanham Act or section 2320 of title 18, United States Code;

Seems straight forward. This Bill is very, very simple reading, so much so that if you tell me what parts, be specific, you don't understand, I'll explain them to you.

Okay...

That. That right there is what is confusing. It basically says "This thing we're talking about is defined by: ", and then a bunch of references to other bills. And yes, I actually used google to look up those other bills. They aren't any better.

Apparently a site is dedicated to theft of US property if it violates section 501 of title 17, United States Code. Okay, let's take a look at that section:

INDUCEMENT OF INFRINGEMENT - Whoever manufactures, offers to the
public, provides, or otherwise traffics in any product or service, such as a computer
program, technology, device or component, that is a cause of individuals engaging in
infringing public dissemination of copyrighted works shall be liable as an infringer where
such activity:
(A) relies on infringing public dissemination for its commercial viability;
(B) derives a predominant portion of its revenues from infringing public
dissemination; or
(C) principally relies on infringing public dissemination to attract
individuals to the product or service.

Well that was an eye opener! Guess I just need to avoid infringing public dissemination, and I'm good to go!

Now for those of you who don't know what that means (I'm guessing most of you), "infringing public dissemination" means sending information out into the public. So any company that relies on doing this with copyrighted material is in violation of this law. Sounds good, right?

Well, "relies on for its commercial viability" is a bit vague. I'm sure this includes pirating sites, but would it apply to, say, Youtube or Google? What about image hosting sites? Would they be in trouble for having copyrighted images on them? I don't know.

It's like this with every part of this bill, and all the bills it links to. A bunch of loosely defined terms and law jargon that makes it difficult to understand exactly what the law states. You can get a general idea, sure, but you'd need an actual lawyer to tell you how or if it could be twisted into something else.

 

[Kargathia]

Well looks like all the fuss was for nothing and it turns out the sky, is indded, not falling after all. The bill never had a chance from the get go of making it out of The House (as I said it wouldn't multiple times over). I won't dispute it was horrible but it has absolutely ZERO chance of being put into law.

I guess now the internet can take a rest and get themselves ready for the next Bill/Law that gets them all in a collective tizzy and screaming about the end of days. At least watching people grossly over react is amusing I suppose. . . .

But arguably if everyone assumed that it wouldn't pass anyway, then it would. Said "overreacting" is what caused the bill to be withdrawn.
It's akin to calling people ridiculous for pointing out that if you don't clean your house it'll become a mess, because "it'll get cleaned anyway".

 

[Alssadar]

Silly SOPA, you thought you could get by the combined will of the Internet and people with intelligence?
Shut down, and is good day to have Internets

 

[Pierce Graham]

Rejoice! Common sense has won the day... for now. It's only a matter of time before they try again...

 

[ckam]

Time to kill PIPA, too. Also, is the blackout still going to happen?

 

[WanderingFool]

Now if somebody already posted this, im gonna be pissed...

 

[alandavidson]

Major Snip

I read the bill, as did my lawyer, and his lawyer friend, and another lawyer I know, and another, and we all came to the same conclusion:

SOPA is bad.

Yes, corporations would have to pay damages for improperly shutting down websites, as you have snidely reminded us throughout the entire discussion, but let's really break this down:

I own a company. It's pretty small and deals with a very niche market. Let's say that I decide to open a web arm of the company, and expand my market globally. Let's just say MEGACORP decides that I'm growing a bit too much, so they use SOPA to shut me down, albeit unjustly. Now, I'm not a rich guy, and the court proceedings would cost around two million dollars for me. MEGACORP won't feel that all, because they rake in well over a billion dollars per year, and they have lawyers on staff to deal with kind of stuff every day. I, on the other hand, don't make that much, and while the court proceedings go on, I'm forced into bankruptcy, and have to shut down my business and sell off my assets.

What have I won? I'll make the answer easy for you, it's a multiple choice: a. Nothing b. Nothing

Unfortunately, mega corporations do this on a regular basis already, and would only use SOPA to make easier.

And that's just on the business side of things. There are people on this forum who can go into great detail about how messing with the DNS system poses a major threat to cybersecurity.

And before you accuse me of butt-humping pirates, like you've been quick to do with everyone else who has challenged you, I'll let you know that I'm a professional actor. Piracy hurts me more than you know. I get paid to act in TV, Film, and Commercials upfront, but there's this little thing called "residuals". Every time a DVD of something I've done is sold, or a rerun of a show I've been in is shown, I get a paycheck. I depend on that paycheck for gas, food, utilities. Hell, I want to buy a house someday. Piracy makes being able to afford groceries pretty difficult.

I'm very against piracy, but I'm also very against SOPA and PIPA. There are better ways to deal with piracy.

Taking away civil liberties is not the answer.

 

[Disasterpiece Press]

SOPA may not have been a solution, but it certainly would have helped cut down piracy as joe-average isn't going to know how to work around DNS redirects. It hardly seems a criticism to say google, an extremely wealthy company, would of had to spend money to enforce SOPA. If they couldn't afford it, they would be exempt from the bill as laid out in the first section of it.
Piracy costs the industries we love billions and to see SOPA scrapped though mainly ignorance is just a sad sight showing how blind the masses can be.

So, wait. Let me get this straight.
You are advocating what would amount to a band-aid on the crack of a dam?
And you keep mentioning how much we "love" these industries, and how we are going to cost them billions of dollars? Yet, in the sentence directly above that one, you tell Google, an "extremely wealthy company" to pay the bill to help enforce SOPA? Wait, what?
And I'm pretty sure these industries aren't hurting for money. They aren't struggling to make ends meet on a week to week basis like a lot of us are.
If you are so concerned about people getting screwed out of their money, I know a cause you can take up - demand that the banks pay back the taxpayers all of the money they begged for before the collapse not so long ago, considering they were the ones that were dicking us over in the first place.
(And let it be said, I don't "love" these industries - I love the art that is sometimes produced by them.)

 

[RJ 17]

Hell yeah! I must say it's quite nice to see Congress get something right for a change! So to the White House that gave the final push into the "nae" category, I say well said and well done.

 

[falcon1985]

Time to kill PIPA, too. Also, is the blackout still going to happen?

It should, if only to enlighten people about PIPA and future threats against the internet. This battle has been won, but the war's only just beginning.

 

[Something Amyss]

My biggest concern was for people like ThatGuyWithTheGlasses, Tobuscus and Cinnemassacare. They're the kind of people who would be affected by this law if the corporations got douchey. Politicians could say all they want that it wouldn't affect them, but in the end if the companies didn't like what they were doing, they would lose their jobs.

To be fair, TGWTG blew it way out of proportion.

That doesn't make the Cool Kid right, but your concern for those sites may be because they were hyping it up to such an epic extent.

 

[Flight]

Also, SOPA's still not dead. It could still come back. Don't be surprised if in a couple of months they try again, without heeding any advice from anyone. Plus, there's still PIPA to worry about.

Given the relatively little attention PIPA has received, I can't help but wonder if SOPA was a red herring. It's still not shelved, even temporarily, and there's a vote on it coming up pretty quickly. Besides, how do we know they're not just going to try again when they think we're not looking?

 

[Dr. Pepper Unlimited]

Finally. While this isn't a permanent victory, this is much needed good news. We can rest easy (for now). Finally politicians actually do something logical for a change and hopefully see this bill for the slippery slope that it really is...

 

[w00tage]

So you have read the bill then? If so then please tell me what the problem is with making sure pirating doesnt happen and increasing the penalties on importing dangerous and illegal goods.

If you truly cared about poltics and America you wouldn't wield false dichotomies like a cavalry rider wields his saber, cutting through intellegent discourse left and right with calculated cunning and unmitigated lust for slaughter.

Now, to address something you brought up:

Yes, you can persue damages for false action using the bill, however by the time you seek redress IT'S TOO LATE because that action has already resulted in the complete shutdown of your domain at a fundamental level.

Good luck funding your lawsuit, because your income has been stripped of you, along with your domain name, and any ways for you to do perfectly legal business.

It puts the onus onto the content provider to prove his content is legal before he can show it, rather than putting the onus on the copyright holder to prove the content is illegal. This is, of course, ASS BACKWARDS.

In order for holders of intellectual properties to stop, they have to display in the courts, using a preponderance of evidence, that their rights are being infringed. SOPA and PIPA give them a weapon that allows them to skip the requirement of preponderance of evidence, and go straight into action before it's been examined in a court of law. This goes against the central concepts of civil law.

Uh... What this guy said. In a Capitalist society like we are in, this law straight up doesn't work. It's essentially handing power right into the Billion dollar corporations' hands and saying to the small simple man "Good luck, have fun getting into the ring with this guy"

Jesus, I'm glad I don't have to jump into this argument....

OT: Yay!

But what about that PIPA thing?

PIPA is still on. We don't know if the WH was including that in their statement, but I'm hoping it does. I edited both of my letters and the petition I signed to include both PIPA and SOPA and sent them to all three congresspeople, so I don't know how much more I can do. Wish I could do something though.

 

[DirgeNovak]

Shit. Liquor store is closed, I can't get champagne.

 

[Something Amyss]

The PROTECT IP act is a Senate bill. SOPA was a House bill.
That means a completely different set of people are in charge of it.
SOPA was dropped to take attention away from PIPA!

To go anywhere, PIPA needs a House equivalent.

 

[ianeddy44]

While everybody cheers the shelving of the SOPA, it was never meant to actually pass. The reason SOPA was created was to propose an EXTREME "solution" to piracy and to censor. It was made so ridiculously draconian that everybody with a thinking head on their shoulders would oppose it. This would make the PROTECT IP act appear as a more feasible and reasonable proposition. It's a very dirty tactic and is quite underhanded, but that's politics and American law for you. Don't think for one second that we should pass PROTECT IP now. It remains as ignorant a piece of legislature as SOPA. Internet laws written by men who are less educated about the internet than 5 year olds should NEVER pass. This must be technocratically handled. I propose that a law is made to offer benefits to digital distribution (Steam, iTunes, Origin, Netflix, etc.) so that hey can offer their services cheaper. More customers will use those rather than a piracy network such as ThePirateBay, Demonoid, or BTJunkie. I've said it so many times before, but the solution to this is not to just ignorantly censor and hope for the best. That's very inaccurate and very sloppy. It will anger people and ruin things. Offering better and legal services is the key. Affordability, convenience, security, and benefits are key to this solution.

 

[w00tage]

Major Snip

I read the bill, as did my lawyer, and his lawyer friend, and another lawyer I know, and another, and we all came to the same conclusion:

SOPA is bad.

Yes, corporations would have to pay damages for improperly shutting down websites, as you have snidely reminded us throughout the entire discussion, but let's really break this down:

I own a company. It's pretty small and deals with a very niche market. Let's say that I decide to open a web arm of the company, and expand my market globally. Let's just say MEGACORP decides that I'm growing a bit too much, so they use SOPA to shut me down, albeit unjustly. Now, I'm not a rich guy, and the court proceedings would cost around two million dollars for me. MEGACORP won't feel that all, because they rake in well over a billion dollars per year, and they have lawyers on staff to deal with kind of stuff every day. I, on the other hand, don't make that much, and while the court proceedings go on, I'm forced into bankruptcy, and have to shut down my business and sell off my assets.

What have I won? I'll make the answer easy for you, it's a multiple choice: a. Nothing b. Nothing

Unfortunately, mega corporations do this on a regular basis already, and would only use SOPA to make easier.

And that's just on the business side of things. There are people on this forum who can go into great detail about how messing with the DNS system poses a major threat to cybersecurity.

And before you accuse me of butt-humping pirates, like you've been quick to do with everyone else who has challenged you, I'll let you know that I'm a professional actor. Piracy hurts me more than you know. I get paid to act in TV, Film, and Commercials upfront, but there's this little thing called "residuals". Every time a DVD of something I've done is sold, or a rerun of a show I've been in is shown, I get a paycheck. I depend on that paycheck for gas, food, utilities. Hell, I want to buy a house someday. Piracy makes being able to afford groceries pretty difficult.

I'm very against piracy, but I'm also very against SOPA and PIPA. There are better ways to deal with piracy.

Taking away civil liberties is not the answer.

Not to interrupt, but I just wanted to point out how right you are about the business side of things. In the end, the major benefit would be to the legal departments of companies, as they would have gained the ability to force sites like Youtube and Facebook into revenue-sharing arrangements in order to remain online.

They would also gain the ability to freely interfere with any competition based on frivolous "infringement" lawsuits. Because we're pretty much out of original stories, and copyrights go 75 years, most everything that can be said, filmed or sung bears some or a lot of resemblance to something that has already been copyrighted. These bills are like handing a license to sell protection plans to the Mafia - if you don't pay what they want, your business will suffer a little "accident" in the form of an infringement injunction. Assuming they don't just examine your business's market, dig up something from their own properties to take it over, and then file an injunction to slam-dunk you while they go steal your customers.

Re your take on pirates affecting you personally though, I have trouble believing that free publicity is bad for you, unless you're in the position where you wouldn't be receiving any recognition. You have to consider that the amount of people that will take something for free is many times greater than the people who would buy it for full or even sale price. Look at Black Friday shoppers, extend the sale to "everything in the stores is free that one day", and consider the difference between the number of shoppers on the free day and on a regular shopping day. I consider that analogy to give a fair estimate of the proportion of people who would pirate, but wouldn't buy.

Anyways, well expressed thoughts, and best of luck with your business!

 

[Lucian The Lugia]

Don't worry I hear they have top men working on it,

Top... Men

Like this guy?

http://media.egotvonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/topman_2.png

 

[IamLEAM1983]

Hooray! We Fus Ro Dah'ed this dung heap into the next term, at the very least, which gives us, what? Two, three months of breathing room?

Don't back down now, people. It's been said before, but PIPA is just as bad. Go Antoine Dodson over it, spread the word. Keep at it.

There's a single, unique argument which The Cool Kid gets right, it being that some sort of compromise needs to be reached. The Torrent technology in itself isn't bad, it's what's being done with it that's reprehensible. The same applies with Usenet networks, ed2k servers or the old standbys like LimeWire. However, neither SOPA or PIPA are presenting fair solutions to this problem, and I honestly doubt that it's a problem that *can* be fixed.

The only catch-all solution I can think of is pure wishful thinking, at that: the publishers lower their price point and focus on quality over quantity. Ergo, more interest is garnered for titles that *deserve* the customer's cash-monies, and the customer gets his money's worth at a reasonable level.

With the advent of digital distribution, I just don't understand why there couldn't be a way for the latest AAA titles to be marketed at twenty or thirty bucks a pop. Is the sixty-to-eighty-dollar price tag that set in stone?

CAPTCHA: 1980 mélémen
"Mêlée Men"? Are these like Kung Fu superheroes? Are these the guys who beat up the evil personification of SOPA? If so, why did precisely 1980 of them?

It sounds like a bad Tsui Hark movie. One I'd maybe watch for shits and giggles.