how to copyright?

[NIKV69]

I do not support it at this time because my research (I could be wrong) indicates that a site can be shut down within hours of a mere claim of infringement...which is not adequate due process in my mind.

Could you post a source of this? I mean the bill gives the DOJ power to seek a court order so they won't have absolute power to shut down sites. The order will not be granted until a judge looks at all facts presented so I can't see site being shut down in "hours"

based on the internet radio podcast I have listened to on this subject, as of right now I do not support SOPA. I have to look at some more information and I'll get back to you.

What did you hear that made you feel this way?

[PhilDernerJr]

Part of the testimony given about it specifically said the process can take as early as 6 hours. I have no link to the transcripts.

[NIKV69]

Part of the testimony given about it specifically said the process can take as early as 6 hours. I have no link to the transcripts.

Sounds like smoke to me. I mean here is the bill. The AG has to seek a court order and that is no way can take 6 hours. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquer...:@@@L&summ2=m&

As long as the courts are not circumvented which seems clear here it's not an overreach of power. I mean it took the DOJ 5 years to enforce the UIGEA act and this bill doesn't give them the power to shut the site down since they are outside the us but instructs search engines and payment processors to place in action measures to counteract piracy.

From what I have read seems like a pretty good bill for people who don't want their copyrighted photos, video or other media stolen at will then distributed at a geometric rate electronically.

[PhilDernerJr]

Smoke as in I'm lying?

[NIKV69]

Smoke as in I'm lying?

No smoke as in the person you are quoting was just making up scenarios because they want to continue to steal copyrighted material at will. Though it is good form to produce sources when making claims or transcripts so we can see what was actually said.

[jerslice]

From what I have read seems like a pretty good bill for people who don't want their copyrighted photos, video or other media stolen at will then distributed at a geometric rate electronically.

When Google, GoDadday, WikiPedia,Reddit, YouTube, the Heritage Foundation, and the founders of the internet itself have all come out against--many of them like Google and internet founders not merely against but strongly against--perhaps it isn't so great.
The only major supporters of this bill are, by and large, Hollywood and the USCC.

An FAQ from respected tech site CNET:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57...?tag=mncol;txt

[NIKV69]

When Google, GoDadday, WikiPedia,Reddit, YouTube, the Heritage Foundation, and the founders of the internet itself have all come out against--many of them like Google and internet founders not merely against but strongly against--perhaps it isn't so great.
The only major supporters of this bill are, by and large, Hollywood and the USCC.

An FAQ from respected tech site CNET:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57...?tag=mncol;txt

You realize that the people you just quoted as being against the bill are the ones who profit the most from the theft of copyrighted material? The ones you quoted as being for the bill are the victims of the theft?

This is equal to being a person who sells guns at gun shows which don't have to be subject to the law of background checks and being against passing a law making it a crime to sell guns in this manner. Not caring that you doing so can harm somebody or lead to someone being killed simply because you profit in huge amounts from it. I mean I love youtube but you realize they make a lot of money from stealing copyrighted stuff?


If this bill gets passed as written and government has to get court approval and have evidence copyright theft is occuring it's a total win for the people who create material protected by copyright. If you are against it then you are condoning the theft and easy transmission of this material for profit. So until someone can give me some real proof of their claims that this bill has major flaws or would be harmful in another way besides letting youtube and google make millions from stolen material I am calling major BS here.

[jerslice]

When did the Heritage Foundation and the founders of the internet profit in it?

I do realize YouTube makes a lot of money off it, but the onus is placed on the user making the upload, and YouTube currently says the user is responsible for the content uploaded - that they merely provide space.

If this bill gets passed as written and government has to get court approval and have evidence copyright theft is occuring it's a total win for the people who create material protected by copyright. If you are against it then you are condoning the theft and easy transmission of this material for profit. So until someone can give me some real proof of their
claims that this bill has major flaws or would be harmful in another way besides letting youtube and google make millions from stolen material I am calling major BS here.

Two things here bud, first: you don't appear to have read the link I posted, but if you do so you'll see that tech folks bring up more than a handful of reasons why SOPA retains the power to damage the internet, nevermind the concerns over government sponsored censorship. Two: you clearly have your mind made up on SOPA. While I strongly disagree with you I don't see you buying anything an anti-SOPA person would throw your way anyways.

Phil, the quote on DOJ disabled a website in six hours came from testimony from the DOJ - it was in a WashingtonPost article from somewhere in the neighborhood of November 17th.

[NIKV69]

and YouTube currently says the user is responsible for the content uploaded - that they merely provide space

That is like saying you own a hall and know that the person you rent it to is auctioning off stolen items in it and you merely provide the space and collecting the money. It's not an excuse. Ebay doesn't allow it why should anyone else?

government sponsored censorship

It's not censorship. You can't allow someone to upload a movie that is copyright infringement then yell when you can't make the advertising revenue from it and call it censorship. It's not even in the ballpark. Censorship is stopping people from expressing themselves due to things you don't agree with or find objectionable that would otherwise not break the law. This is breaking the law.

While I strongly disagree with you I don't see you buying anything an anti-SOPA person would throw your way anyways.

I asked you to provide me with something of substance and I would be open to hear it. So far you have given me a what if and are assuming the government will be censoring us when all they have said is they are going to take court sanctioned action against sites that knowingly reproduce stuff they know is stolen and or breaks copyright law. You are basically telling me that by doing this it's censorship? I mean come on you can't really believe that?

Basically what is happening here is the tech world and regular people hate this law because they are going to have to pony up a couple of bucks to stream a movie instead of watching a free pirated copy on youtube. I mean unless I am missing something it's basically that simple. Now if you can provide something of substance that gives any support to a government overreach and or censorship I am all for it.

A censor free internet means you can post anything you want. Porn, cursing, gore etc. As long as you haven't stolen it. That is not being threatened here. To exploit that notion is really unfair and just a red herring.

[ImperfectSense]

The idea that anyone could defend legislation like SOPA is scary to me. Here are a few of my concerns with this and similar bills.

First: They will not accomplish their stated goals of ending piracy. Peer-to-peer filesharing hasn't depended on search engines, blogs, or domain names since... well, it's been a long long time. It is all done via torrents which operate solely by IP address and the torrent files themselves are 1) not illegal so the sites hosting them can't be shut down and 2) easily searchable using tools like BitChe that don't rely on websites or domain names.

Second: They WILL allow the paranoid to the point of idiotic Entertainment Industry to take down pretty much every website that allows user content or user feedback in any form. Today, a website like Facebook or NYCAviation makes users agree to a User Agreement that states the user is responsible for the content of everything they post. If someone posts something they shouldn't, the party who is being harmed can ask NYCAviation to take the material down, they will do so, and that is the end of the story. Under SOPA, if I post a link to something illegal in this forum post, then within just a few hours the entire NYCAviation domain could be turned off and removed from all search engines. Nobody would be able to access this website, nor would it show up as a result in a Google search, until the courts get around to hearing NYCAviation's defense. This could be weeks, months, years, during which time this website might as well never have existed. Users will move elsewhere, search engine rank will be reset to zero, and even if eventually you convince the courts that your website is "clean", your entire business will be starting from scratch when they turn your domain back on.

Third: The Internet is known as the World-Wide Web. Everyone can access everything that's out there, information flows freely. There are a few countries who censor what their citizens can see, but every year they let in a little more, and every year those people are a little closer to enjoying the freedoms we take for granted. If we allow the government to start censoring speech on the Internet, to start punishing website owners who are not even responsible for the content posted by their users, we will kill the Internet. If SOPA passes, the only way for a website owner to be sure their site won't be taken down will be to require an approval process for every piece of user content posted to their site. Can you imagine the cost? How many staff would you need to do that here at NYCAviation? How many hours would it take a post to be approved? Could thoughtful and interesting conversations like this even happen, or would everyone have moved on to the next big story before any of the comments are even visible yet? Can you imagine an Internet with no comments, no blogs, no links, all out of fear of the U.S. Government and our entertainment industry?

Fourth: There are more reasons, many more, but this one will be my last today... We have a country in economic crisis, we have a war ongoing in Afghanistan, we have new unknown regimes sprouting around the globe as dictators fall (thanks Internet!), we have tax laws that need to be rewritten, we have TSA groping grandmothers, we have countless serious national issues... and yet Congress, BOTH HOUSES, are screwing around with legislation like SOPA?!?! Are you fracking kidding me? Teens downloading movies instead of going to the theater or buying the DVD which is supposedly hurting sales (but nobody can point to any statistics that PROVE that of course).... That's our big issue? That's what our Representatives are going to vote on? C'mon, let's get real. A lot of those problems Congress can't do anything about (or shouldn't) but those it can do something about aren't going to go away if we ignore them. Let's throw away this useless, scary legislation and move on to something IMPORTANT.

-Liz

[eric8669]

Great response Liz

[NIKV69]

Peer-to-peer filesharing hasn't depended on search engines, blogs, or domain names since... well, it's been a long long time

This is not true, I have found plenty of torrents by search engines. You can't pigeon hole it. Some people will hear through word of mouth, search engine, blogs any way in which people find stuff on the internet.

They WILL allow the paranoid to the point of idiotic Entertainment Industry to take down pretty much every website that allows user content or user feedback in any form.

How when a court system has to ok any action? Why do you keep reciting this empty propaganda? The bill does not give absolute power to anyone and the entertainment industry can not do anything by themselves. I mean it's right there in the bill. We don't need the bomb throwing can we stick to facts?

Today, a website like Facebook or NYCAviation makes users agree to a User Agreement that states the user is responsible for the content of everything they post. If someone posts something they shouldn't, the party who is being harmed can ask NYCAviation to take the material down, they will do so, and that is the end of the story. Under SOPA, if I post a link to something illegal in this forum post, then within just a few hours the entire NYCAviation domain could be turned off and removed from all search engines. Nobody would be able to access this website, nor would it show up as a result in a Google search, until the courts get around to hearing NYCAviation's defense. This could be weeks, months, years, during which time this website might as well never have existed. Users will move elsewhere, search engine rank will be reset to zero, and even if eventually you convince the courts that your website is "clean", your entire business will be starting from scratch when they turn your domain back on.

Again this is just total propaganda and fearmongering. I am pretty sure a judge is not going to ok any DOJ action or ok the taking down of a site in hours unless all the other less evasive courses of actions have been exhausted. That is what the court system is for. To prevent absolute power. Using your NYCav example I am sure if illegal material is posted Phil would be contacted and made aware of the situation with instructions and warnings that the material has to be removed and the person and or site posting the stuff addressed. To try to make us believe that the government has the ability to just start taking down sites at the first site of wrongdoing is total BS. This is a fake scenario being invented by the people that fear their free ride in viewing movies and listening to music is coming to an end.

There are a few countries who censor what their citizens can see, but every year they let in a little more, and every year those people are a little closer to enjoying the freedoms we take for granted.

So now you are brining North Korea into this? No. I won't even entertain this. You are way over the line. This isn't stopping the free flow of information. It's about stopping the free flow of STOLEN media.

If SOPA passes, the only way for a website owner to be sure their site won't be taken down will be to require an approval process for every piece of user content posted to their site. Can you imagine the cost? How many staff would you need to do that here at NYCAviation? How many hours would it take a post to be approved? Could thoughtful and interesting conversations like this even happen, or would everyone have moved on to the next big story before any of the comments are even visible yet? Can you imagine an Internet with no comments, no blogs, no links, all out of fear of the U.S. Government and our entertainment industry?

Again just more fearmongering, if the law passes Phil won't have to constantly monitor anything. If something gets by he will get a heads up and then he could monitor the IP address of serial abuser and block them. Ebay does it and it didn't put them out of business.

We have a country in economic crisis, we have a war ongoing in Afghanistan, we have new unknown regimes sprouting around the globe as dictators fall (thanks Internet!), we have tax laws that need to be rewritten, we have TSA groping grandmothers, we have countless serious national issues... and yet Congress, BOTH HOUSES, are screwing around with legislation like SOPA?!?! Are you fracking kidding me? Teens downloading movies instead of going to the theater or buying the DVD which is supposedly hurting sales (but nobody can point to any statistics that PROVE that of course).... That's our big issue? That's what our Representatives are going to vote on? C'mon, let's get real. A lot of those problems Congress can't do anything about (or shouldn't) but those it can do something about aren't going to go away if we ignore them. Let's throw away this useless, scary legislation and move on to something IMPORTANT.

It's this diversionary kind of smoke and mirrors that always erupts when people lose the golden goose. You are telling me that the illegal sharing of movies and music has not caused harm to retail sales? Your really believe that?

[PhilDernerJr]

Both sides are valid, but until we hear what the exact due process is to prove otherwise, site owners like myself need to fear the worst.

[ImperfectSense]

It isn't fear mongering to expect that judges are going to make snap decisions based on incomplete information and after hearing only one side of the story... that's EXACTLY what is going to happen. The owner of the website will not be given a chance to tell their side to the judge, they won't even know anything is happening until the judge has already reached their decision. I don't always feel comfortable linking to wikipedia stuff but here are some very succinct and well laid out summaries of the major problems with this bill, ESPECIALLY the one about the weakening of the DMCA brings to light just how horrible this bill will be in action: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_On...uments_against

Look, if you work at a retailer and you get caught stealing some stuff, you'll be given the opportunity to post bail, the amount will be reasonable so you can actually afford it, and it will be illegal for anyone to not hire you based on the upcoming case against you... in other words, innocent until proven guilty, and the legal system isn't allowed to do anything that will permanently harm your future until you are found guilty by a jury of your peers. But what SOPA will be doing is more like this: You work for a retailer, a movie industry executive sees you steal a DVD of their movie, they go to a judge and the judge CLOSES THE STORE, has the signs taken down, and removes all traces from the Yellow Pages and Google Maps. THEN the store owner has to wait on a court date, go to court, and try to convince a judge that their employee wasn't doing anything wrong. If they win, they get to reopen their store, but all of their customers have found new places to shop. If they lose, which could happen even if they had no idea what their employee was doing, then their store remains closed and THEY could face up to 5 years in prison plus lots of fines. Oh and in the meantime the building caught fire so they can't even liquidate their assets to make some $$$ back ('cause really, websites don't have physical assets). Finally, if the owner of the business wins, they're innocent, they can re-open their store... they cannot counter-sue the movie executive for all the losses they have sustained based on his/her false allegation! In order to receive any damages back, they have to prove the allegation was malicious, which is an incredibly hard (nearly impossible) standard to meet.

This legislation is BAD BAD BAD... If you've ever been on a high school debate team or have any sort of legal background you know how important the language of something like this is, how it needs to be clear and specific about exactly what is ok and what isn't, exactly what needs to be proven and what doesn't, etc... this bill is not at all clear, about any of that, and those gaping holes ARE going to be exploited... all they have to do is find a judge who agrees with them. They've already found (bought?) congressmen and senators, how hard will a judge be? =\

[NIKV69]

It isn't fear mongering to expect that judges are going to make snap decisions based on incomplete information and after hearing only one side of the story.

If you are just throwing it out there it is. If you really believe this it's paranoia.

that's EXACTLY what is going to happen

You know this how? If it's a crystal ball tell me who is going to win the Super Bowl. I will split the winnings with you.

The owner of the website will not be given a chance to tell their side to the judge, they won't even know anything is happening until the judge has already reached their decision.

They won't be here because they are sites in other countries and outside our jurisdiction. Hence why the payment processors and search engines are targeted. Very similar to the UIGEA. The gambling sites existed offshore and were licensed by the Mohawk and other Indian tribes totally immune to any law anywhere. Which is why banks had to be addressed and the actual electronic funding had to be made illegal.

If you've ever been on a high school debate team or have any sort of legal background you know how important the language of something like this is, how it needs to be clear and specific about exactly what is ok and what isn't, exactly what needs to be proven and what doesn't, etc... this bill is not at all clear, about any of that, and those gaping holes ARE going to be exploited... all they have to do is find a judge who agrees with them. They've already found (bought?) congressmen and senators, how hard will a judge be? =\

You are getting way ahead here. The bill goes through many processes and many amendments before voting and passage. As long as courts are given clear guidelines and nobody has absolute power the bill is fine. There is no censorship in it whatsoever and the freedom the net will not be effected.