Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Internet giants place full-page anti-SOPA ad in NYT

boingboing.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–118 of 118 posts

Re: Internet giants place full-page anti-SOPA ad in NYT

#111

Post by waqf »

jrockway wrote: post #27
thematt wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are you talking about? Microsoft is in the same market as at least 5 of those companies listed.

SOPA is largely an anti-counterfeiting bill. Microsoft does not want people to be able to buy counterfeit versions of Windows, so they support this bill. Google, on the other hand, doesn't make anything that can be counterfeited, so they have nothing to gain from this bill. They do have a lot to lose (with all the censorship provisions), so they are taking a stand against the bill.

> SOPA is ostensibly an anti-counterfeiting bill. ...

FTFY.

Re: Internet giants place full-page anti-SOPA ad in NYT

#112

Post by enmaku »

snowwrestler wrote: post #109
enmaku wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that's about right. It would make YouTube legally responsible for all user-created content. According to YouTube's press statistics, 48 hours of video are uploaded every minute. If you were to hire a team of people to watch all the videos and make sure they aren't copyrighted, you'd need 2,880 people working around the clock - and that's just to keep up with the NEW videos, letalone the backlog of stuff that's al…

Google is already legally responsible for all the content on YouTube. The DMCA does not remove liability, it just sets out a process for managing liability--the takedown notice. If Google ignores conforming legitimate takedown notices, under the DMCA, they are fully liable for the infringing content. And as we see with Viacom, the DMCA does not actually prevent private lawsuits.

True, but the DMCA requires a takedown notice and then failure to comply before anything can be done. SOPA allows pulling of DNS entries as a first action, meaning sites are down while they handle the complaint. There's also a huge difference between "liable" as the DMCA defines it (must remove when notified) and "liable" as SOPA defines it (must remove immediately, notification == site death)

Re: Internet giants place full-page anti-SOPA ad in NYT

#113

Post by Vivtek »

philwelch wrote: post #91
Vivtek wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ck2 probably doesn't remember the momentous uproar over Iraq because the media was not at all interested in covering the protests. Unless you were in a city where a protest was going on and physically saw it, it basically didn't happen. And there were protests over Afghanistan; I participated in some myself. We weren't all shocked and compliant - the first thing I said upon seeing burning towers on the TV at the Indi…

There are protests over everything at all times. That's why the media doesn't cover them. They aren't news. There are crowds of demonstrators in every major city, outside of every abortion clinic, and on the National Mall in DC 24 hours a day. The Iraq protests were the largest protest movement in decades and lasted for years. It really wasn't difficult to find out about them. > the first thing I said upon seeing bur…

It really wasn't difficult to find out about them.

Heh. You live in a large city.

Re: Internet giants place full-page anti-SOPA ad in NYT

#114

Post by snowwrestler »

enmaku wrote: post #112
snowwrestler wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google is already legally responsible for all the content on YouTube. The DMCA does not remove liability, it just sets out a process for managing liability--the takedown notice. If Google ignores conforming legitimate takedown notices, under the DMCA, they are fully liable for the infringing content. And as we see with Viacom, the DMCA does not actually prevent private lawsuits.

True, but the DMCA requires a takedown notice and then failure to comply before anything can be done. SOPA allows pulling of DNS entries as a first action, meaning sites are down while they handle the complaint. There's also a huge difference between "liable" as the DMCA defines it (must remove when notified) and "liable" as SOPA defines it (must remove immediately, notification == site death)

The private right of action in SOPA is actually modeled on the DMCA notice. Let's say a record label asks PayPal to stop payments to an allegedly "infringing site". PayPal must notify the allegedly infringing site of that request within 5 days. If that site provides a counter-notification, PayPal leaves the site alone and checks out of the whole process. From that point, the record label has to go to a judge to try to get an injunction against the site (with all the associated burden of proof, etc).

The DNS blocking is only available to federal law enforcement; a private complaint can't pull DNS under any circumstance.

Re: Internet giants place full-page anti-SOPA ad in NYT

#115

Post by marquis »

tomjen3 wrote: post #94

If that is the kind of ads tech giants make, then we have all lost. This needs more Don Draper and less wall of text. It needs to tell a compelling story with a righteous underdog fighting the good fight which would be squashed if this law passes. It needs to paint anybody who support it as a traitor to America(TH). And it needs to rebrand it the "Killing the American Dream Act" so that nobody can politically afford…

Just posted: Republican Darrell Issa says "it has no chance of passage".

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/17/idUS40280193622011...

Re: Internet giants place full-page anti-SOPA ad in NYT

#116

Post by philwelch »

Vivtek wrote: post #113
philwelch wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are protests over everything at all times. That's why the media doesn't cover them. They aren't news. There are crowds of demonstrators in every major city, outside of every abortion clinic, and on the National Mall in DC 24 hours a day. The Iraq protests were the largest protest movement in decades and lasted for years. It really wasn't difficult to find out about them. > the first thing I said upon seeing bur…

It really wasn't difficult to find out about them. Heh. You live in a large city.

Only since January. I only lived in small towns, not even metropolitan areas, up until then.

Re: Internet giants place full-page anti-SOPA ad in NYT

#117

Post by natch »

lotu wrote: post #82
natch wrote: post #78

A TLDR skim of this ad by the average NYT reader will see only this: We support the bill. Yes, I omitted the words "goals of the" [edit: 's stated goals] but I'm talking about what the average reader will get out of the ad before they flip to the next page. Not good, imho. And yes, they do care about the average reader. If they were trying to reach people other than the average reader, there are better ways to do tha…

That is irrelevant as the average NYT reader is not the target of this ad. This ad is a letter to the people listed in the first line, delivered to them via the NYT. Unlike a letter which will be handled by an intern this letter will be read directly by the congressmen it is addressed to, and by spending the money for the full page ad they express who serious they are about this.

Then it's even worse, because the average congressperson is not nearly as bright as the average NYT reader.

Re: Internet giants place full-page anti-SOPA ad in NYT

#118

Post by JBiserkov »

snowwrestler wrote: post #114
enmaku wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, but the DMCA requires a takedown notice and then failure to comply before anything can be done. SOPA allows pulling of DNS entries as a first action, meaning sites are down while they handle the complaint. There's also a huge difference between "liable" as the DMCA defines it (must remove when notified) and "liable" as SOPA defines it (must remove immediately, notification == site death)

The private right of action in SOPA is actually modeled on the DMCA notice. Let's say a record label asks PayPal to stop payments to an allegedly "infringing site". PayPal must notify the allegedly infringing site of that request within 5 days. If that site provides a counter-notification, PayPal leaves the site alone and checks out of the whole process. From that point, the record label has to go to a judge to try t…

1. a private complaint can't pull DNS

2. It is available to federal law enforcement.

May be I'm just being cynical, but there seems to be an obvious way around fact 1. using fact 2.

money == power; gov officials seem to be willing to go to ANY length, given enough Shift+444

Post reply on HN