Better permalink to Sal Khan's explanation of SOPA
Sal Khan explains SOPA / PIPA
31–40 of 67 posts
Re: Sal Khan explains SOPA / PIPA
#32We need S.O.P.A: Stop Outrageous Political Assholes. Did anyone here see the letter from the CEO of the MPAA (who happens to also be a senator) chriss dodd today, which said that this SOPA blackouts are a gimmick and that we are corporate pawns for blacking out in protest? Is it enraging to anyone else that he is allowed to be the CEO of the MPAA AND a senator at the same time where he can both write and benefit from…
Actually Chris Dodd is a former Senator of Connecticut. His term ended in 2010.
Re: Sal Khan explains SOPA / PIPA
#33We need S.O.P.A: Stop Outrageous Political Assholes. Did anyone here see the letter from the CEO of the MPAA (who happens to also be a senator) chriss dodd today, which said that this SOPA blackouts are a gimmick and that we are corporate pawns for blacking out in protest? Is it enraging to anyone else that he is allowed to be the CEO of the MPAA AND a senator at the same time where he can both write and benefit from…
United States Senator from Connecticut
In office January 3, 1981 – January 3, 2011
On March 1, 2011, the Motion Picture Association of
America announced that Dodd will head that organization
Re: Sal Khan explains SOPA / PIPA
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
> YouTube fails to fall under the first because it is not primarily designed to engage in, enable, or facilitate infringing Why does everyone keep leaving out the crucial "in a manner" words? Read it carefully with emphasis on those words: A site is illegal if] the U.S.-directed site is primarily designed for use in offering goods or services IN A MANNER that engages in, enables, or facilitates... It doesn't matter w…
"In a manner that" modifies "offering goods or services". The structure of this is: The site is illegal if it is primarily designed for use in X where X is "offering goods or services in a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates...".
I agree you can read it that way, but it doesn't change much to me. Any site that accepts user content as its main function still has a primary purpose that enables / facilitates the infringement.
Re: Sal Khan explains SOPA / PIPA
#35We are hosting a discussion about #SOPA tonight at TooTchat. Come and join us. http://bit.ly/AiomgP
Re: Sal Khan explains SOPA / PIPA
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not a lawyer, but it certainly sounds like his examples fit. Here's the text: [A site is illegal if] the 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, enables, or facilitates [various illegal stuff]…
Your second left parenthesis belongs one line higher. A more clear way to read it is to write out four copies of it, and then in the first copy delete or clauses 2, 3, and 4. In the second copy delete or clauses 1, 3, and 4, and so on. That gives a separate complete sentence for each of the four ways you can run afoul of that section: A site is illegal if] the U.S.-directed site is primarily designed for use in offer…
Even if you're right and SOPA doesn't apply to youtube (that I doubt) The most important take away message is that it doesn't matter if the site is illegal It is sufficient that some copyright-holder thinks it is illegal.
Of cause large corporations will make deals behind the scene or battle in court and their sites will continue to operate. It is similar to software patent situation.
Effectively SOPA is a tool to shutdown any site with a user-generated content at any time. Companies can use it to crush their competitors; government -- to stifle political dissent.
Re: Sal Khan explains SOPA / PIPA
#37A very nice video, except the particular passage referred to has the clause "designed for..., has only limited purpose or use other than, or is marketed for..." violating various laws. I don't think any of his examples would fall under any of these categories.
I find it disturbing that even though I am still against SOPA and the likes, that the opposition seems to be willfully ignoring this portion. Unless I am totally misreading it, it would be very difficult for the likes of Youtube or Facebook to be included. The language is still dangerous though, because the designed for clause seems to open things up. I can easily see BitTorrent being brought in to be "designed for"…
A farmer has successfully been prosecuted under the -Interstate Commerce Clause- for growing his own wheat on his own land for his own use. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
It never left a state, it never left his farm, it was not for sale, it is definitely not interstate commerce, yet he violated the interstate commerce clause (reasoning was that if he had not grown his own wheat, he would have had to buy some, which would affect the market, which would affect interstate commerce.)
It's because of things like this that cause people to interpret legal language in the worst possible imaginable light - 'very difficult' has happened many times.
So I think it's quite reasonable to assume that at some point Youtube and Facebook will be found to be "...marketed by its operator or another acting in concert with that operator for use in offering goods or services in a manner that facilitates [illegal things]"
One ad that says "Post comments without logging in!" would be sufficient to meet the letter of that language. You really think this is a 'hyperbolic threat'?
Re: Sal Khan explains SOPA / PIPA
#38We need S.O.P.A: Stop Outrageous Political Assholes. Did anyone here see the letter from the CEO of the MPAA (who happens to also be a senator) chriss dodd today, which said that this SOPA blackouts are a gimmick and that we are corporate pawns for blacking out in protest? Is it enraging to anyone else that he is allowed to be the CEO of the MPAA AND a senator at the same time where he can both write and benefit from…
Actually Chris Dodd is a former Senator of Connecticut. His term ended in 2010.
He lost the election in 2010, but his term ended in 2011. He became CEO of the MPAA two months later.
Re: Sal Khan explains SOPA / PIPA
#39Sal, hope you are on HN because I have to say, you f-ing rule. I don't think anyone could have done a better job explaining it.
Re: Sal Khan explains SOPA / PIPA
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
He is saying that there are a lot of sites that offer services which could enable or facilitate pirating, because the terms 'enable' and 'facilitate' are not particularly limited in scope. It seems clear to me.
What do you mean by "not particularly limited" in scope? It seems to me the intent of the provision is that more is required to run afoul of the provision, e.g., that a site also be "designed or operated primarily for the purpose" of enabling or facilitating illegal activity. I give you that the provision is ambiguous. If so, then that is the problem. Say "The provision is ambiguous." Don't say that it clearly allows…
If we need a law, let's put a law in place with clearly limited authority, not one where reasonable people can wholly disagree about what it says.
I've never understood why lawyers tolerate ambiguity in the law. But maybe I'm wrong: how can abuse be prevented if this is passed? If abuse starts, how can it be stopped without court action? I'm still reeling from the '90s when Microsoft considered court battles just another field of play for their business. Be illegal. Drive competition out of business. Fight in court. Lose sometimes and pay fine. Net win.
Let me ask you this; it may seem unrelated, but it's not: When I bought my iphone, I was required to enter a contractual agreement with ATT at the same time. Then Apple changed its TOS for the iphone. I could accept or lose its functionality. If I refused, would I be let out of the contract with ATT? Would I have to go to court to find out?
Unfortunately the business climate today is "do what you can until somebody stops you."