No surprises here
SOPA-Supporting News Outlets Aren't Covering SOPA
21–30 of 66 posts
Re: SOPA-Supporting News Outlets Aren't Covering SOPA
#22I was talking to my father over the holidays about SOPA. He's an avid FOX news and CNN viewer. He had no idea what I was talking about. After our conversation he took it upon himself to search Google on the subject to educate himself on it. I'm from Canada so all I can do is keep an eye on this at the moment, but it goes to show you that everyone in the US need to spread the word.
What is your father's opinion on it after educating himself? I'd be interested to know the average person's viewpoint before and after learning about SOPA.
Re: SOPA-Supporting News Outlets Aren't Covering SOPA
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
SOPA doesn't require sites to monitor their users. The complaints I've heard: 1. It requires sites to be removed from DNS if a copyright complaint is made against them. Specifically, the removal avoids due process. The copyright holder doesn't need a court order to have the offending site taken down. 2. Sites are held responsible for content their users upload. So e.g. Mediafire would be taken down because of content…
Regarding your #1: My interpretation (which may very well be wrong of course, IANAL), is that the copyright holder DOES need either a court order or Attorney General intervention to remove a site from DNS. Regarding your #2: Again, my interpretation is that this only applies to foreign sites (either foreign domains or foreign servers)
I wouldn't use "there isn't enough due process" to describe why SOPA is a terrible bill, or any similar legal argument. Besides, many of those problems have been fixed in the Manager's amendment.
DNS blacklisting as a concept is simply unacceptable. The way it is applied in SOPA requires that a certain classification of DNS caching servers must pretend like a website does not exist, which reduces trust in domestic caching servers and stifles DNSSEC.
If people move to foreign DNS (or local caching servers), which is incredibly easy, the entire thing is circumvented. But a tricky side-effect takes place: the system is now balkanized. Servers in the U.S. believe the naming system to resolve to one IP, and servers everywhere else resolve to something completely different.
This balkanizing effect can break the effectiveness of CDNs, can congest Internet traffic, and overall reduces the credibility of the naming system. Passing SOPA would mean other countries would follow in the same footsteps. Once every country believes the delegation chain can resolve to whatever they want to, what is the point in an international naming system?
These are only some of the problems with DNS blacklisting -- nevermind the security problems -- which are not worth it especially considering it is so easily circumvented.
Additional problems with the bill, such as the vague wording which may consider Tor a tool for "circumventing" DNS blacklists and, therefore, illegal, demonstrate a huge lack of forward thinking and an unsustainable approach to copyright enforcement.
The doomsday scenario is that government sticks its foot in Internet policy and communication and pretends it actually has the reasonable capability to prevent piracy. It will never have that capability without large-scale violations of privacy.
There are also a good amount of talks regarding the precedent SOPA may have for general purpose computing and a whole host of other sensitive topics. I don't think it's responsible to just point at provisions in the bill and say "well it seems to add enough oversight".
Besides, the bill encourages preemptive takedowns by providing immunity. The tech industry behaviors that will result would be devastating.
Re: SOPA-Supporting News Outlets Aren't Covering SOPA
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
SOPA doesn't require sites to monitor their users. The complaints I've heard: 1. It requires sites to be removed from DNS if a copyright complaint is made against them. Specifically, the removal avoids due process. The copyright holder doesn't need a court order to have the offending site taken down. 2. Sites are held responsible for content their users upload. So e.g. Mediafire would be taken down because of content…
Regarding your #1: My interpretation (which may very well be wrong of course, IANAL), is that the copyright holder DOES need either a court order or Attorney General intervention to remove a site from DNS. Regarding your #2: Again, my interpretation is that this only applies to foreign sites (either foreign domains or foreign servers)
"Regarding your #2: Again, my interpretation is that this only applies to foreign sites (either foreign domains or foreign servers)"
And foreign sites aren't important?
Re: SOPA-Supporting News Outlets Aren't Covering SOPA
#25This is precisely why a blackout day of major web sites is necessary. If Google, Yahoo, Bing and Facebook are all down for the day, not only would the users be made more aware of the issue, but the media would be forced to cover the blackout and subsequently SOPA, lest they appear completely out of touch with the world.
Re: SOPA-Supporting News Outlets Aren't Covering SOPA
#26Freedom of the press... to do whatever the fuck they want. I propose they lose that freedom and instead we burden them with the "Responsibility of the press". That should grant them the same privileges and protection, but also makes them accountable when they pull crap like this.
They're probably banking on the fact that the like of Google, Yahoo, Amazon, Twitter, Facebook et al won't take the nuclear option and therefore SOPA gets forgotten without the attention deficit eyeballs keeping it relevant.
Re: SOPA-Supporting News Outlets Aren't Covering SOPA
#27The same goes for Ron Paul. Google for "Ron Paul ignored by media". US does the exact same thing the China, N.Korea does to brainwash their civilians, and yet, they accuse the others for doing so.
Re: SOPA-Supporting News Outlets Aren't Covering SOPA
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
Regarding your #1: My interpretation (which may very well be wrong of course, IANAL), is that the copyright holder DOES need either a court order or Attorney General intervention to remove a site from DNS. Regarding your #2: Again, my interpretation is that this only applies to foreign sites (either foreign domains or foreign servers)
"Regarding your #2: Again, my interpretation is that this only applies to foreign sites (either foreign domains or foreign servers)" And foreign sites aren't important?
I didn't mean to imply they weren't.
But I guarantee that the issue wouldn't be making such a splash on tech-savvy sites if everyone knew that only foreign sites (whose primary purpose is infringement) were affected and that the only effects to those sites are that they are removed from US DNS systems and US advertising funding.
Re: SOPA-Supporting News Outlets Aren't Covering SOPA
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
Regarding your #1: My interpretation (which may very well be wrong of course, IANAL), is that the copyright holder DOES need either a court order or Attorney General intervention to remove a site from DNS. Regarding your #2: Again, my interpretation is that this only applies to foreign sites (either foreign domains or foreign servers)
I wouldn't use "there isn't enough due process" to describe why SOPA is a terrible bill, or any similar legal argument. Besides, many of those problems have been fixed in the Manager's amendment. DNS blacklisting as a concept is simply unacceptable. The way it is applied in SOPA requires that a certain classification of DNS caching servers must pretend like a website does not exist, which reduces trust in domestic ca…
I think you have great points but I don't believe they sufficiently support the doomsday freak-out I'm witnessing.
DNS blacklisting is already happening in the US and all over the world (ICE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Immigration_and_Customs_En... and DNSBL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNSBL). I admit we are already on a slippery slope here with blacklisting, but I think most of your DNS comments could be attributed to failures in the design of DNS (and CDNs) themselves. If you want trust, security, and prevention from censorship (as I do too), DNS is not your answer. I hope namecoin better address these issues (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Namecoin).
If you are scared of censorship, don't rely on infrastructure that is owned by parties you don't trust.
SOPA supporters must know this will not stop piracy (the bill is contradictorily named, I know), but surely, it would minimize the piracy and counterfeiting that effects the non-tech-savvy American masses. And I truly believe that is their intent.
Personally, I don't think we should be legislating the Internet at all, but we've already started, and although future legislation on this slippery slope could be devastating, this bill seems to be fairly neutered. Good issues are being brought up with the discussion of SOPA, but SOPA itself is not the end of the internet.
Re: SOPA-Supporting News Outlets Aren't Covering SOPA
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't speak to your points 2 or 3, but section 103 (which governs ad and payment processors) applies to domestic sites as well. If I've understood correctly, Youtube couldn't be blocked, but could be forbidden to host advertisements - which would kill it just as surely.
Well, it is definitely ambiguous, but it looks like section 103 does apply to domestic sites. However , they do focus on a particular class of sites: 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, enable…
But it would be even easier for an opposing lawyer to claim that YouTube "is marketed by its operator … in a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates, a violation of [...some existing laws...]." Any site that allows users to submit content is predictably enabling a violation of copyright law. This is how the copyright cartel already views things — it seems unlikely that they would become more conservative if SOPA passes.