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

SOPA-Supporting News Outlets Aren't Covering SOPA

readwriteweb.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 66 posts

Re: SOPA-Supporting News Outlets Aren't Covering SOPA

#31

Post by thebigshane »

chc wrote: post #30
thebigshane wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 S…

After re-reading the Manager's Amendment, I think that quote is no longer applicative. It looks like allowing user generated/submitted content is no longer enough under SOPA.

However, it's a good thing that language was removed! So perhaps, this is an example of the benefit of the outrage over this bill. But at what point do we look back and decide that the changes are sufficient and stop the mob?

Re: SOPA-Supporting News Outlets Aren't Covering SOPA

#32

Post by wrath »

oacgnol wrote: post #22
wrath wrote: post #8

I 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.

His first impression was that it was a good thing since it protected right holders. I had to explain to him why SOPA was bad for the internet before he got it. Now that he gets it he's looking out for similar laws in Canada!

Re: SOPA-Supporting News Outlets Aren't Covering SOPA

#33

Post by dissident »

thebigshane wrote: post #29
dissident wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

Couldn't be more wrong, sorry.

The ICE seizures are perfectly fine because they target the delegation chain directly -- they are actually seizing the domain from a registrar or TLD authority with control over it within the chain. They are not a DNS blacklist and it does not interfere with caching servers.

SOPA attempts to target names which are not within U.S. jurisdiction by asking caching servers maintained by ISPs to refuse resolution of names where the delegation chain does not cede authority to entities within U.S. jurisdiction. This is an unprecedented technique for censoring content online.

DNSBL is absolutely not what you think it is, I'd recommend reading that wikipedia article more carefully. It is a voluntary blacklist which is implemented by IRC servers and mail software, but does not force cache servers to resolve names differently or anything close to what you're suggesting. It's just a list of names "you shouldn't trust" but not a censorship/redirection system.

There are no design flaws in the way CDNs work either, I don't know where you're getting that. SOPA harms CDNs by removing the efficiency achieved through geotargetted name resolution (something provided by caching servers).

Re: SOPA-Supporting News Outlets Aren't Covering SOPA

#34

Post by dissident »

thebigshane wrote: post #28
Zirro wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

> if everyone knew that only foreign sites (whose primary purpose is infringement)

I'm sorry, but this reeks of complete ignorance. I don't think you're qualified to argue for SOPA.

Re: SOPA-Supporting News Outlets Aren't Covering SOPA

#35

Post by orenmazor »

wrath wrote: post #8

I 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.

your dad would be the first canadian I've heard of that is an avid FOX news fan. how can you even catch fox news up here? (I dont have cable, but when I did I dont think we had the news…)

Re: SOPA-Supporting News Outlets Aren't Covering SOPA

#36

Post by jaylevitt »

jaequery wrote: post #27

The 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.

Ron Paul's been on the front page of the Washington Post web site nearly every day. And they're kinda mainstream.

Re: SOPA-Supporting News Outlets Aren't Covering SOPA

#37

Post by thebigshane »

dissident wrote: post #33
thebigshane wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

Couldn't be more wrong, sorry. The ICE seizures are perfectly fine because they target the delegation chain directly -- they are actually seizing the domain from a registrar or TLD authority with control over it within the chain. They are not a DNS blacklist and it does not interfere with caching servers. SOPA attempts to target names which are not within U.S. jurisdiction by asking caching servers maintained by ISPs…

I didn't realize the process used by ICE was different than what SOPA suggests, but that makes sense now that you've explained it.

I don't understand how DNSBL is different though for the end user. I realize DNSBL is voluntary and SOPA would mandate/force, but I don't see how the effects are different. For a DNS server that uses a DNSBL, does it regard a blacklisted domain name through DNSBL differently than one that blacklisted through SOPA?

Regarding CDNs, for a user initiating request for a non-blacklisted site, why would the CDN be now less efficient in its response?

I have no idea if there is a design flaw in DNS or CDNs. My point is that if DNS and CDNs become drastically inefficient by having to ignore certain names, then it sounds like it could have been designed better to handle such cases.

Re: SOPA-Supporting News Outlets Aren't Covering SOPA

#38

Post by thebigshane »

dissident wrote: post #34
thebigshane wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> if everyone knew that only foreign sites (whose primary purpose is infringement) I'm sorry, but this reeks of complete ignorance. I don't think you're qualified to argue for SOPA.

Well, then please point out the flaw(s) in my logic, we're all adults here right?

Re: SOPA-Supporting News Outlets Aren't Covering SOPA

#39

Post by chc »

thebigshane wrote: post #31
chc wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 S…

After re-reading the Manager's Amendment, I think that quote is no longer applicative. It looks like allowing user generated/submitted content is no longer enough under SOPA. However , it's a good thing that language was removed! So perhaps, this is an example of the benefit of the outrage over this bill. But at what point do we look back and decide that the changes are sufficient and stop the mob?

Decide the changes are sufficient? That seems to assume there's some basic core of SOPA that we agree is good. I'm not sure a lot of people really believe SOPA has a good core. There might be good intentions behind it from some parties, but it seems like if you get rid of all the harmful parts, you still aren't left with anything good. You need to establish that the bill is necessary and beneficial, not just that it isn't completely radioactively harmful.

Also, even if SOPA is defeated or rendered toothless, the AAs will just keep trying to ram their insane demands through Congress. Our representatives need to really understand that the cartel lobbyists don't represent the will of the people, and we won't accomplish that by shrugging and saying, "Eh, good enough."

Re: SOPA-Supporting News Outlets Aren't Covering SOPA

#40

Post by maeon3 »

In case you didn't already know, all news stations are agenda driven propaganda machines, that means they get paid to cause people to have certain opinions, desires, fears and knowledge. It is a brainwashing engine that takes every measure to make sure it doesn't look like that. The same can be found in China, Russia, Iran, Japan. stations that install complete fabrications of reality in the viewers minds for profit.

Getting fox news to report sopa is a lost cause. Even if we were to riot and set half the country on fire against sopa... All news stations would have their own narratives and spin the hell out of it to make it seem like the terrorists are winning because there isn't enough censorship.

Post reply on HN