Worst Internet Law Ever

[FArchivist]

Murder is illegal.

Currently to enforce laws against it the prosecution must have a preponderance of evidence and they must not leave reasonable doubt.

And with this analogy you go WAY the hell of base.

Murder is the violation of a criminal statute, with criminal penalties and so on.

Copyright violation? Is a civil violation, not a criminal violation. Copyright infringement is not, repeat, NOT considered to be "theft" in the criminal sense by any court in the United States. That is why enforcement of copyright is the responsibility of the copyright holder and not the various police authorities of the US.

So if you are trying to compare any possible law about MURDER to copyright infringement, you are comparing apples and oranges. The two are wildly different, governed under wildly differing sets of standards. They cannot be compared.

And honestly my biggest problem is that most people reacting to this law are not doing so after having read the bill and making their own educated decision about how they feel but rather basing it on websites, blogs and friends all telling them how to feel about it.

As to this topic I am done discussing it because I have more pressing personal matters going on that are taking my energy.

Well, let's discuss ACTUAL provisions of the law then.

One provision in SOPA allows the Attorney General to cut off sites from the domain name system, virtually disappearing them from the web - the "Internet death penalty" as many have called it. Foreign sites would have to submit to US jurisdiction to contest the Attorney General, a costly and timely process many will not be able to afford even if innocent. The Attorney General may do so without providing cause; ie, if he decides that Youtube is on his shitlist, he can just order it flipped off and no one can question him legally.

Another provision allows corporations to directly force payment processors and advertisers to cut off an alleged infringing websites' money supply - even if only a portion of the site is infringing. Without any government oversight as to whether they are doing this correctly.

Still another provision gives immunity to companies who voluntarily cut off suspected infringing websites with virtually no oversight. That means no court of appeal, no federal agency or court you can appeal to - AT&T can say "Fuck you, buddy." and that's all she wrote. Oh you want to sue? Sorry, not possible - the law provides immunity from suits resulting from these actions.

And then we have the possible Constitutional violations, which have yet to be considered despite over 100 law professors outlining possible issues.

So even with this complete lack of oversight that the bill legislates into law, giving carte blanche to corporations to enforce copyright as they see fit without repercussion or appeal, you support the law. OK. Please advise us as to why you think these provisions are necessary or legitimate?

[Panacea]

I never understand this attitude from these companies. You would think they would welcome any sort of publicity especially given that Ghostbusters is what over 20 years old now? I can understand them going after illegal downloads of the movies but not fan created stuff. But then again, I guess it's like Disney going after every version of Mickey copies that they don't like.

The RIAA made a huge mistake going after infringers on the internet. What they've recouped in court doesn't match their actual costs, gave them a black eye in the court of public opinion, and hasn't stopped or even slowed down illegal downloads.

The comic book industry took a much more pragmatic approach to fan sites, that descended from the Amateur Press Associations of the 70's-90's (fan magazines with fan art and stories): as long as no money is changing hands, and ownership is credited, leave 'em alone. It's free advertising to encourage fans.

The problem here is that the government is run by people who don't understand the internet.

Oh, no, they understand it! They just don't give a rat's ass.

Uhm no. See the companies would have to prove harm. If they can't prove that the "infringement" is harming them then no action is taking. Outside links isn't a "portion of the site dedicated to infringing copyright"

I disagree, and your analogy is flawed. Running a red light is not the same as infringement. The law does not allow a bystander to stop a jaywalker and hold him until the cops show up to write a ticket. SOPA allows ISP's to shut down a web site that might be infringing just so they can avoid heat from the studios.

The companies don't have to prove harm. They don't even have to be aware that potential infringing is going on because the ISP can shut down a site without notifying the rights holder.

That's the scary thing about this law. There's no access to the courts for the alleged infringer. And someone else pointed out, the RIAA has a habit of going after the wrong people, people who often pay up because it's cheaper than going to court.

Then there's the trolls. These are the legal firms who send out "takedown" notices to consumers accusing them of violating the DCMA. The recipient of such a letter may or may not be actually guilty but has to make a choice: pay a few hundred dollars to make the claim go away, or spend thousands to fight it in court. In one famous case, a troll legal firm tried to subpoena IP addresses but didn't actually have any names to name in its lawsuit. They also tried to list hundreds of names and IP addresses on a single lawsuit rather than file them individually. The judge was quite annoyed.

SOPA would open a new door into these kinds of legal shenanigans. We really don't need to go there.

Thanks, Boozy. It always helps to have someone making sure that people view others as panicky sheep who are groundlessly afraid that the whole internet is going to be pretty well shattered, as opposed to being people who might actually have seen past abuse of overly broad laws like this one and are genuinely concerned that this one could go too far.

Ouch!

China has a less-restrictive censorship than this law would create, and if it is ratified, you can be certain that there would be a Mass exodus of companies such as Google, Facebook, Youtube (part of google, IIRC), that can be affected by this law's draconian 'guilty upon hint of suspsicion' mandate, to nations that are less restrictive, which will leave a hole in the US economy of a few hundreds of billions of dollars.

Google, Facebook, and Microsoft are actually fighting this law tooth and nail for that very reason. Had SOPA been in effect a few years ago, YouTube would never have gotten off the ground. Consider its effects on the Arab Spring. No YouTube, no Arab Spring.

It's creating new ways to enforce existing copyright laws.

Think of it like this originally a cop had to see you run a red light to ticket you for running a red light. Then they designed cameras that will take the picture of anyone running a red light.

New laws had to be passed to allow for those cameras to be used in enforcing an already existing law.

It wasn't like running the red light had been legal in first place now they just have a new to enforce the original law saying it is illegal.

YouTube not taking down videos that violate existing copyright law would be illegal with or without this new law.

[Rageaholic]

The Nostalgia Critic is also worried about this. I actually found an interesting thread on the forums, describing a different take on this.. According to this thread, this will merely prohibit search engines from including them in their results, making them go into the "deep web" where most stuff is never found because it can't be accessed by search engines. I haven't read up on this law too much so I don't know what the credibility of this is, but even that sounds pretty bad.

[HYHYBT]

If nothing else, this pushes further into the realm of "guilty until proven innocent" than ever before. And isn't that the opposite of the way our system is supposed to work?

[jackfaire]

I want to offer some clarity as people seem to think my analogy of passing laws to allow the use of traffic cameras has anything to do with whether or not this law is good or bad.

The example I gave was actually a good example because regardless of whether the crimes are of different classes we weren't talking about what the laws do.

The analogy was explaining that the law is about enforcement of existing laws.

Saying that it's the equivilant of letting a bystander detain a jaywalker or arresting bystanders because of a jaywalker has nothing to do with what I was saying.

What I was saying in that analogy is this.

Law 1)

Distributing copyrighted material is illegal

Law 2)

Jaywalking is illegal

Both are laws broken down to the basics but we can all agree both acts are on the books as illegal actions.

So what I was pointing out is that when they added traffic cameras to stop lights they had to pass a law making it legal to use them to prove that people broke a law.

The law to allow the use of the cameras DID NOT make jaywalking illegal.

This law WOULD NOT make distributing copyrighted material illegal.

That is what I was saying because people seemed to be confused and think that currently it's legal to distribute copyrighted material.

[Andara Bledin]

The law to allow the use of the cameras DID NOT make jaywalking illegal.

This law WOULD NOT make distributing copyrighted material illegal.

This law isn't making copyright infringement illegal, no.

However, to go with your analogy, this law would make it a crime for, say, somebody who drove a bus to allow the jaywalker onto the bus.

It's that sort of over-reaching tomfoolery that makes this new law so troubling.

^-.-^

[FArchivist]

That is what I was saying because people seemed to be confused and think that currently it's legal to distribute copyrighted material.

No, I have no such concept rattling around in my head. I know that to distribute copyrighted materials is a violation of copyright, thanks much.

However, you haven't bothered to address any of the actual provisions of the bill that I brought up for discussion. Are you practicing evasion?

[jackfaire]

However, you haven't bothered to address any of the actual provisions of the bill that I brought up for discussion. Are you practicing evasion?

No I am done discussing the law itself because I have personal issues in the real world going on that to me are much more important. I am angry about them and as such will be unable to keep my emotions out of most debates so am bowing out for the time being.

I was only trying to address what seemed to be people trying to stretch my analogy to address the law itself when I was merely trying to make the point that the law was about enforcment not making new things illegal.