Protect IP/SOPA: The Entertainment Industry's attempt to break the internet

[choxorn]

SOPA: Hollywood Finally Gets A Chance to Break the Internet

As promised, here’s the first installment of our closer review of the massive piece of job-killing Internet regulation that is the Stop Online Piracy Act. We’ll start with how it could impact Twitter, Tumblr, and the next innovative social network, cloud computing, or web hosting service that some smart kid is designing in her garage right now.

[...]

The bill sets up a system to punish sites allegedly “dedicated to the theft of US property.” How do you get that label? Doesn’t take much: Some portion of your site (even a single page) must

1.be directed toward the US, and either
2.allegedly “engage in, enable or facilitate” infringement or
3.allegedly be taking or have taken steps to “avoid confirming a high probability” of infringement.

If an IP rightsholder (vaguely defined – could be Justin Bieber worried about his publicity rights) thinks you meet the criteria and that it is in some way harmed, it can send a notice claiming as much to the payment processors (Visa, Mastercard, Paypal etc.) and ad services you rely on.

Once they get it, they have 5 days to choke off your financial support. Of course, the payment processors and ad networks won’t be able to fine-tune their response so that only the allegedly infringing portion of your site is affected, which means your whole site will be under assault. And, it makes no difference that no judge has found you guilty of anything or that the DMCA safe harbors would shelter your conduct if the matter ever went to court.Indeed, services that have been specifically found legal, like Rapidshare, could be economically strangled via SOPA. You can file a counter-notice, but you’ve only got 5 days to do it (good luck getting solid legal advice in time) and the payment processors and ad networks have no obligation to respect it in any event.

[...]


At a minimum, this means that any service that hosts user generated content is going to be under enormous pressure to actively monitor and filter that content.

...as we’ve learned from the DMCA takedown process, content owners are more than happy to send bogus complaints. What happened to Wikileaks via voluntary censorship will now be systematized and streamlined – as long as someone, somewhere, thinks they’ve got an IP right that’s being harmed.

Link to that article.

Moderator Action: I abridged the article for you- please refer to rule 6b of the OT additional rules.

And here's a link to americancensorship.org's articles/petition against this, plus a couple of videos and a giant picture:


Link to video.


Link to video.

Spoiler Big Image :

TL;DR version: There's this bill, or couple of bills, that Congress has been talking about for the past week or two, sponsored by, who else, groups like the RIAA, MPAA, and the US Chamber of Commerce. It effectively lets the US government and the aforementioned groups pretty much destroy websites for even being suspected of violating intellectual property rights, for not doing enough to prevent intellectual property rights from being violated, or for a lot of other similar reasons.

Really TL;DR version: It's an internet censorship bill that will destroy tons of legal websites because really rich companies want more money.

It may just be the worst internet-related bill Congress has ever seriously considered passing. I don't see how anyone can support it. Intellectual Property or no, it has way too much potential for abuse and it blatantly violates the 4th amendment, and probably the 1st, too.

Go click on the link to American Censorship's website, read the stuff there, send the petition if you want to do that. This is pretty serious.

And... let the discussion begin.

 

[JollyRoger]

Can you give a link to the text of the relevant language of the proposed statute?

 

[choxorn]

Open Congress has Two Links on the bills, or at least summaries of them.

 

[Maniacal]

If this bill passes I will be extremely unimpressed.

 

[Virote_Considon]

I think that the United States is finally getting its priorities straight.

I think with this legislation and the historical rights granted recently to pizzas of all shapes and sizes which allows them to express their chosen identity of being a vegetable, many of America's ills have been thwarted. The only problem I have right now is that the Obama administration are doing nothing to prevent the potentially deadly advertising of water as being a catch-all cure for dehydration.

 

[GoodGame]

I think some aspects of the act as Choxorn's OP describes them sound very abusable for monopolistic or predatory business practices. Also it does seem like it will potentially be abused to hurt proper "fair use" of IP.


I agree with the intent of curbing revenue loss, especially if it is performed by US-based financial interests against other US-based financial interests, however I think judicial revenue is needed for every instance. If the review isn't timely, then they need to hire more judges, kind of like the patent office needs more peeps.


Unamusingly, even the right to comment on the quality of frozen pizza might potentially be abused as IP-infringement, without judicial review.


The flip side is that increased content awareness on the part of web-hosts might mean they will be more inclined to pay for proper free-lancing rather than ad hoc freebie contributions. But I don't like the idea that it would be legal for a sort of monopoly to form and act prejudicially in the name of vigilantism. Also, does the act make provisions for websites that are hacked/defaced? 5 days might not be enough time to rectify.

 

[JollyRoger]

Official Summary
10/26/2011--Introduced.Stop Online Piracy Act - Authorizes the Attorney General (AG) to seek a court order against a U.S.-directed foreign Internet site committing or facilitating online piracy to require the owner, operator, or domain name registrant, or the site or domain name itself if such persons are unable to be found, to cease and desist further activities constituting specified intellectual property offenses under the federal criminal code including criminal copyright infringement, unauthorized fixation and trafficking of sound recordings or videos of live musical performances, the recording of exhibited motion pictures, or trafficking in counterfeit labels, goods, or services. Sets forth an additional two-step process that allows an intellectual property right holder harmed by a U.S.-directed site dedicated to infringement, or a site promoted or used for infringement under certain circumstances, to first provide a written notification identifying the site to related payment network providers and Internet advertising services requiring such entities to forward the notification and suspend their services to such an identified site unless the site's owner, operator, or domain name registrant, upon receiving the forwarded notification, provides a counter notification explaining that it is not dedicated to engaging in specified violations. Authorizes the right holder to then commence an action for limited injunctive relief against the owner, operator, or domain name registrant, or against the site or domain name itself if such persons are unable to be found, if:
(1) such a counter notification is provided (and, if it is a foreign site, includes consent to U.S. jurisdiction to adjudicate whether the site is dedicated to such violations), or
(2) a payment network provider or Internet advertising service fails to suspend its services in the absence of such a counter notification. Requires online service providers, Internet search engines, payment network providers, and Internet advertising services, upon receiving a copy of a court order relating to an AG action, to carry out certain preventative measures including withholding services from an infringing site or preventing users located in the United States from accessing the infringing site. Requires payment network providers and Internet advertising services, upon receiving a copy of such an order relating to a rightholder's action, to carry out similar preventative measures. Provides immunity from liability for service providers, payment network providers, Internet advertising services, advertisers, Internet search engines, domain name registries, or domain name registrars that take actions required by this Act or otherwise voluntarily block access to or end financial affiliation with such sites. Permits such entities to stop or refuse services to certain sites that endanger public health by distributing prescription medication that is adulterated, misbranded, or without a valid prescription. Expands the offense of criminal copyright infringement to include public performances of:
(1) copyrighted work by digital transmission, and
(2) work intended for commercial dissemination by making it available on a computer network. Expands the criminal offenses of trafficking in inherently dangerous goods or services to include:
(1) counterfeit drugs; and
(2) goods or services falsely identified as meeting military standards or intended for use in a national security, law enforcement, or critical infrastructure application. Increases the penalties for:
(1) specified trade secret offenses intended to benefit a foreign government, instrumentality, or agent; and
(2) various other intellectual property offenses as amended by this Act. Directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to review, and if appropriate, amend related Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Requires the Secretary of State and Secretary of Commerce to appoint at least one intellectual property attache to be assigned to the U.S. embassy or diplomatic mission in a country in each geographic region covered by a Department of State regional bureau.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3261/show

tl;dr:

Gives the DOJ the authority to seek a court order against a foreign website.

Sets up a two-step process for rightsholders to seek enforcement. First step - provide notification that will make its way to the site owner and gives the site-owner a right to counter notification that it is not infringing. Step two allows the right holder to seek a court order for limited injunctive relief against the website.

Frankly, I don't see the problem.

 

[GoodGame]

I don't see the problem either, since it's strictly targeting foreign-hosted websites. I think US jurisdiction trumps a concept of an international internet that can do business in the US while making fun of copyright conventions.

Also for the "counter-notice" mentioned, is it enough for the website to warn posters not to post IP-infringing material, with a review period for any submissions before they are posted? That seems fair enough. If the only thing this act does is prevent US-based financial interests from sponsoring international IP piracy, then I think it's a great piece of law.

 

[Kozmos]

So how are they going to exactly act against those foreign hosted websites? Besides going for the CC companies.

 

[JollyRoger]

I think the rightholder can go after U.S. sites, but there is still that two step process that allows the target website to fight back and even mitigate by removing the specific content complained of. Also, looks like the remedies available under this statute are injunctive only, not monetary.

 

[GoodGame]

So how are they going to exactly act against those foreign hosted websites? Besides going for the CC companies.

That's about it. It's basically saying that international finance with US ties cannot make help make fun of US IP laws. Pretty fair concept. I don't think they are trying to overstep international law by this.

 

[Crezth]

I will be very surprised if this law pasts after the 3/4s of a million people have risen against it and the considerable bad press it receives. Plus there's a good chance Obama will just veto it if it makes it past the Senate.

 

[JollyRoger]

I will be very surprised if this law pasts after the 3/4s of a million people have risen against it and the considerable bad press it receives. Plus there's a good chance Obama will just veto it if it makes it past the Senate.

If by "bad" press you mean press that is misleading regarding the content of the bill, that generally does not stop much legislation.

 

[Crezth]

If by "bad" press you mean press that is misleading regarding the content of the bill, that generally does not stop much legislation.

That's true but the outlook for the bill looks grim overall. I haven't heard any official "pro-" comments and, by means of comparison-via-ratio, infinite "con" comments.

 

[JollyRoger]

That's true but the outlook for the bill looks grim overall. I haven't heard any official "pro-" comments and, by means of comparison-via-ratio, infinite "con" comments.

I think the legislation is a good way to deal with the problem of infringement. There may need to be some details that need to be tweaked (such as allowing a longer period for counter-notification), but the bill seems structured to allow for both the rightholder and the website to be heard.

 

[Crezth]

I think the legislation is a good way to deal with the problem of infringement. There may need to be some details that need to be tweaked (such as allowing a longer period for counter-notification), but the bill seems structured to allow for both the rightholder and the website to be heard.

Oh. I heartily disagree.

As far as freedom-infringing goes this is the tops. The internet is essentially the last bastion of anarchy in a world that is starving for want of it.

Plus, the bill doesn't actually achieve its goal of stopping piracy. At all. Piracy is like cloned velociraptors and brontosauruses: life will find a way.

 

[JollyRoger]

As far as freedom-infringing goes this is the tops.

Actually, it is not. The copyright holder has to jump through two hoops (one of them judicial) to get a mere limited injunction. Now it might infringe upon the freedom to infringe, but a true non-infringer should be able to easily beat this.

 

[Crezth]

Actually, it is not. The copyright holder has to jump through two hoops (one of them judicial) to get a mere limited injunction. Now it might infringe upon the freedom to infringe, but a true non-infringer should be able to easily beat this.

Do you deny that it gives the entertainment industry considerable pull and power over internet websites and that it encourages social networking websites to censor its users for fear of retribution?

 

[JollyRoger]

Do you deny that it gives the entertainment industry considerable pull and power over internet websites and that it encourages social networking websites to censor its users for fear of retribution?

Last time I checked, the entertainment industry was not a part of the judicial branch - I do not think a judge would issue a limited injunction against a website that has no content owned by the complainer.

And sure, it will encourage websites to make use of emerging technology to avoid infringement of property rights.

Also, I do not think enforcement of property rights can be properly worded as "retribution" - a pretty strong word coming from the side that gets upset by the word "theft" being bandied about.

 

[Crezth]

Last time I checked, the entertainment industry was not a part of the judicial branch - I do not think a judge would issue a limited injunction against a website that has no content owned by the complainer.

And sure, it will encourage websites to make use of emerging technology to avoid infringement of property rights.

Also, I do not think enforcement of property rights can be properly worded as "retribution" - a pretty strong word coming from the side that gets upset by the word "theft" being bandied about.

Don't be so coy. The effect of this bill is to give the entertainment industry an inordinate amount of control over what shows up on your internet.

And if you think that this doesn't translate because the entertainment industry is not literally the judicial branch then you're very naive. Money talks and there's bound to be a judge that can and will shut down website X for the smallest of reasons.

Add to that the fact (that you conveniently ignored) that the bill won't actually stop piracy, and you've got yourself a stew goin' on.