Worst Internet Law Ever

[Greenday]

Ah, that webpage in the OP finally loaded.

What a load of crap. Anything to try to screw people over for a couple bucks.

[Hyena Dandy]

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

[Duelist925]

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

Herehere. They understand the net about as well as they understand quantum physics. Its some scary thing that might destroy the world. =P

I'm fairly sure this law, if it ever goes into affect, will be repealed, or just outright ignored, within just a few months of being implemented. Anonymous would have a field day with this shit, along with just about anyone else with a working net connection and a mischevious streak.

If it passes, I give it a week at the outside before every news site, and "legitimate" media site is taken down by people flooding them with copy righted shite.

[jackfaire]

CS has a section dedicated to outside links; that, alone, could get them in deep shit if this law goes through. Were, they, you know, actually hosted in the US. But, since it's not, it's just useful as an example.


The chilling effect this will have, not to mention the gutting of massive sections of actual content by those whose only connection is that the pages in question have a "donation" link to PayPal, for example, is absolutely unacceptable.

^-.-^

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"

Fansites would also be safe. This does not repeal the fair use Act. Nor does it counter it so if something is covered by the Fair Use Act then this law would not shut down a site. If the site is churing out whole episodes of a show then it will do so.


This law to go back to my earlier analogy is the equivilant of telling the cops. Okay here is a law that outlines the procedure for you to enforce ticketing people for jay walking something that is already illegal.

Using an avatar that is some movie character or something falls under the Fair Use Act is not illegal and thus could not be touched by this law. Nor could any harm be proven.

In fact using the law in any way that people everywhere are afraid they will would create a boy who cried wolf situation in which the law would become ineffectual because investigators would stop doing any investigating of someone's claims.

What this law does is allow them an easier way to cut off something like The Pirate Bay's resources. Or the black market website they have been unable to track.


Also sites have to be given according to the law the chance to remove illegal content.

[Boozy]

Very interesting and informative, jackfaire, but may I counter with:

ZOMG!!1ELEVENTY!11THEY ARE GOING TO TAKE AWAY MY INTERNETZ!!!WTFBBQ!

Rational discussions about intellectual property don't take place on the internet.

[Dreamstalker]

When Sony first started going after the fan sites, a few had no choice but to go dark until the owners could figure out how to legally cover their butts or at least fake it; some joined forces but a number of good smaller ones never recovered.

As far as I'm aware, they could never actually prove infringement of any sort, but that didn't mean they wouldn't try (see my above comment "going after it because THEY aren't making money off it"). If the owner rolls over and settles they don't have to, but they still get their money and the material taken down.

Big media corporations tend to go after the little guys who don't have the money to mount a defense (a lot can't and don't); they get away with bogus accusations because $siteowner who has a server in his bedroom doesn't want to lose the house (or the hosting company doesn't want to be accused of obstruction so they turn over the info).

What it does do is allow service providers and online financial institutions like Pay Pal to distance themselves and deny service to websites who are in part or whole dedicated to the distribution of illegal downloading, and/or other illegal activities.

Who decides what is illegal/infringing? If it's the lawyers for the studios, of course they will find a way to prove it; most complaints are written in such daunting pseudo-legalese they won't be given a detailed examination.

Oh and harm has to be proven. They can't just say, "Well this person made a mix cd we want them shut down" They have to prove it hurts record sales.

Which they can, albeit in a roundabout convoluted way that would fail a detailed logic check. Remember the RIAA has gone after people who didn't even own computers.

[Pedersen]

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"

Scenario:

From: MegaMovieCorp
To: User
Subject: We Have a Problem

You see, you're using a character from my movie as your avatar. That character is, as you know, trademarked. I would be happy to provide a license to you to continue to do so for the reasonable amount of $1000. Please contact my office within the next 15 days to discuss the license.

From: User
To: MegaMovieCorp
Subject: Re: We Have a Problem

Nah. I'm covered by the Fair Use Act. I'm not changing, and I'm not paying.

From: MegaMovieCorp
To: User
Subject: Re: We Have a Problem

You misunderstand the law. It happens frequently. The Fair Use Act dictates use of copyright, which I am not alleging you infringe. You infringe on my trademark, which is governed by the laws covering trademark use. Your avatar is not a parody, satire, or other protected speech. If you wish to continue to use my character as your avatar, you're going to have to license it from me, or I will be forced to ask a court to take action against you and the site.


From: User
To: MegaMovieCorp
Subject: Re: We Have a Problem

Go ahead. You're wrong, and I'll prove it in court if I have to.


-------------------
Fast forward to court. MegaMovieCorp, in protecting their trademark (not their copyright), presents the above exchange to the judge. MegaMovieCorp has plenty of harm to show, too. Loss of income from licensing fees, dilution of trademark, possible revocation of trademark (yes, companies can lose their trademark if they don't prevent such usage). The judge looks at the evidence, and agrees.

Furthermore, opportunity has been given to remove the infringing material via the exchange above (at least, the argument could be made). If they get a sympathetic enough judge, the order could be entered to shut down the site via the blacklist. Boom, there goes the site.

That's just one scenario. If you'd like, I'll write down several more. I'll pull in cases that abound about DMCA abuse, and find quotes about how that law wouldn't be abused in exactly the way it was abused, and point out how this law goes even further than the DMCA.

The point is this: This law is a very bad law. It makes the site owner suffer the consequences of what the user does, and basically destroys those safe harbor provisions of the DMCA. If you host your blog on blogger, and your blog talks about what happened in Congress last week, and somebody else hosts their blog on blogger, and they talk about where to find bittorrents of the latest movies in the theatres, blogger could be shut down, blocking your speech.

There's no alarmism here: That's one of the stated abilities of the bill. It's even more direct than the example I gave above, since it's a portion of blogger dedicated to copyright infringement.

Since the bill also removes most liability, it could also be used by people willing to lie: This page uses my IP, and the user won't take it down or pay me for it. Shut them down.

Calling it bad is being kind to it. It's horrid, and is likely to have a major stifling effect on the internet portion of the economy. I know that I, for one, will have major issues working on sites that have user generated content for fear of losing my entire domain because of a rogue user. That, by the way, is called "chilling effect on free speech", and is something the courts very much do not like.

Since the law actually requires that site owners engage in affirmative policing (unless they're willing to risk being shut down), sites like CS would have to have every post go into moderation before being visible. If that didn't kill the site, I don't know what would.

In addition, Congress is putting a rush on this bill, to get it done by the end of the year. Why? Why are they so worried about allowing this law the chance to gain opposition?

ZOMG!!1ELEVENTY!11THEY ARE GOING TO TAKE AWAY MY INTERNETZ!!!WTFBBQ!

Rational discussions about intellectual property don't take place on the internet.

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.

[Dreamstalker]

If you host your blog on blogger, and your blog talks about what happened in Congress last week, and somebody else hosts their blog on blogger, and they talk about where to find bittorrents of the latest movies in the theatres, blogger could be shut down, blocking your speech.

If someone disagrees with anything online, all they might have to do to get it shut down is post a warez/torrent link with a throwaway account.

[Andara Bledin]

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.

No. They don't have to prove anything.

The bill allows action against suspected sites. No proof necessary. Plus it makes streaming, without any proof of harm at all, a felony offense.

Collection of SOPA-related articles at TechDirt

This piece of anti-speech garbage takes away the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA. How can anyone possibly argue that it's not a dangerous bill?

^-.-^

[Salted Grump]

It's bad enough that, just by examining the bill, I can see at least a Dozen reasons why, if the bill is passed and ratified, practically Every ISP in the US will be forced to shut down, and anything relating to games, movies, music, etc, even legitimate reviews, would have to either pay liscence fees to post, or also be shut down.

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.

[Pedersen]

I just updated the OP. Folks, this bill, with everything I read, gets worse and worse and worse. It's like the Federal Government is trying to say "You know what? Fuck the internet. Let's just close it down."

The link I just added to the OP is here: http://fratching.com/showthread.php?t=5411

[Dreamstalker]

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.

That may not help. According to the update link in the OP:

"by filing a protest, any foreign website owner would have to agree to be within the jurisdiction of the U.S. civil courts, should the infringed copyright owner wish to sue them for additional violations later."

So it would seem to be damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[Salted Grump]

Pedersen is right; the way it's written, with the new information in the update link, it'd be cheaper to just shut off the entire internet in the US.

[telecom_goddess]

Very interesting and informative, jackfaire, but may I counter with:

ZOMG!!1ELEVENTY!11THEY ARE GOING TO TAKE AWAY MY INTERNETZ!!!WTFBBQ!

Rational discussions about intellectual property don't take place on the internet.

That was good

I really don't see something like this passing or sticking around.....I just don't see how it's enforceable.

[Evandril]

What's the big deal? It's not like laws have ever been misused before, and with all the hackers from China, of course we need more restrictive laws than they have...After all, we're the land of the free, right??