22 ms·
SOPA Hearing is Streaming Live
- sixtofour 15y agoQuality is unbearable.
- Vivtek 15y agoContent is, too, I imagine.
- feralchimp 15y agoDisagree with both of you. Video and audio are both smooth and free of dropouts, and the testimony of this attorney (who is she, btw?) is clear and informative. Compared to some other hearings, the reps asking questions seem legitimately interested in making the bill suck a lot less. Time will tell, I suppose, and it sucks that this bill made it this far, but I'd highly recommend watching the feed if you care about the outcome. For example, your next letter to your elected representative could reference specific content of the discussion rather than rehashing something that was talked about. Nothing says "I care" like "I cared enough to sit through the same hearing you did."
- JoshTriplett 15y ago> the reps asking questions seem legitimately interested in making the bill suck a lot less That seems like a large part of the problem; they treat it as a foregone conclusion that the bill will pass, perhaps with a bit of tweaking. This bill needs to die. All bills should have the presumption of failure, with a very high bar to get them to pass, not the other way around.
- cynest 15y agoThe problem is the "think of the children" argument will come back to haunt them come next election season.
- Vivtek 15y ago"Think of the children" is the politician's version of buying IBM. Nobody ever lost an election because they thought of the children.
- fryguy 15y agoThey really should. Should the 10 year old girl that posted a video on youtube of herself singing along with a Justin Beiber song be considered a felon and put in jail for 5 years?
- JoshTriplett 15y agoAnd should one person doing so cause YouTube to get shut down?
- werdnanoslen 15y agostream is broken for me
- click170 15y agoDoesn't work for me either. Won't play in VLC or Quicktime. [Edit] Kept trying and it ended up working
- cypherpunks01 15y agoWorks for me, open with VLC. Audio is only in my right ear though.
- megamark16 15y agoSame here with VLC, although it's in my left ear ;-) Although now that I'm watching it, this is such a train wreck.
- namidark 15y agoIts there in the left too -- just very soft.
- uptown 15y agoI think the left audio channel was reported as copyright infringing.
- bishamon 15y agoIf you use VLC, Audio > Audio Channels > Right to get it in both.
- nextparadigms 15y agoThe stream worked for a while in VLC, but it was choppy. It doesn't work anymore. I don't think they were expecting too many people to watch this.
- kapitalx 15y agoI don't understand why they are talking about counterfit medicine. Is that covered under the DMCA? OR SOPA?
- JoshTriplett 15y agoSOPA claims to cover counterfeit goods as well, and some of the previous DNS-based censorship targeted sites distributing counterfeit goods.
- rglover 15y agoThis is truly a waste of humanity's time. Edit: Check out the guy in the back on his iphone most likely looking at some form of "infringing content."
- ypcx 15y agoIt is. I believe heavyweights like Google won't let them get away with this. They have lobbyists too.
- nextparadigms 15y agoThere are also heavyweights like Microsoft who are sponsoring the bill. My guess is there are still more money being invested to make this a reality than otherwise.
- kiba 15y agoIt must sucks to be a bright hacker that work for Microsoft. Don't you think people who ought to know better should be opposing this bill? If we could get Bill Gate on board, that would be great. I mean, he already have billion of dollars, why should he care about making more money?
- mdwrigh2 15y agoDo you have a source for that info? A quick Google search turns up nothing on Microsoft's stance on SOPA.
- _delirium 15y agoIt doesn't look like Microsoft is directly lobbying either way, but the Business Software Alliance has been lobbying heavily in favor, and Microsoft is often considered the dominant player in the BSA.
- danielsoneg 15y agoMicrosoft's pro-PROTECT IP [1], though I don't think they've made a statement on SOPA yet. They are, though, as pointed out, a member of the BSA, which is very pro-SOPA. 1: http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2011/05/25/microsoft-offers-its-support-for-the-protect-ip-act.aspx http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2...
- ajankovic 15y agoFinal result of this SOPA campaign is going to show how much influence does American internet users actually have in the "Real" world.
- ukgent 15y agoto the UK works via media player, but at work can not test sound. This is not looking good brothers on the otherside of the sea. What i read today is a 5to1 debate :/ and i got a horriable feeling the nervous looking girl might be the 1 against :/
- loungin 15y agoGot any room on your side of the pond?
- a3camero 15y agoYou don't need to go that far. Canada! We're not far away and most day-to-day things are the same here. Also our Supreme Court recently ruled that hyperlinks are like footnotes in a book so publishing a hyperlink to defamatory material doesn't mean you're responsible for the defamatory material (not republication). Sensible ruling. Heading in direction of internet freedom not away from it.
- loungin 15y agoHonestly, I had not heard that, that's awesome. Keep going that way and I'll ditch the Cali sun for your forests (sorry ukgent :)
- a3camero 15y agoShould have included case in original post: http://scc.lexum.org/en/2011/2011scc47/2011scc47.html http://scc.lexum.org/en/2011/2011scc47/2011scc47.html
- ukgent 15y agoWell I like england for the tea, the weather and the pretty good nature. However friend i dont recommend coming here, the UK takes alot of the US stuff spins it a little and introduces it here. The problem is the UK has no great start-up industry and very few people who have the technical understanding in political jobs to really evulate anything effectivly. tl:dr, the UK is going the same way. and the core EU (once they kick out the dead weight will be forced to do the same me thinks) every country running their own internet with great big blacklists, that in turn will turn in to whitelists, and soon it will be "you can only view these pages"
- mwsherman 15y agoStream is working fine for me. The content makes me wish we could find a way to firewall ourselves from powerful Luddites.
- jeffreyg 15y agoI'm listening currently (11:43a EST) and they're quoting cyber security experts about how it could undermine security. From consumer union groups about how it affects consumer safety, from venture capitalists about how it can stifle innovation. A lady right now is addressing how it's an issue that they don't have any technical expertise on the panel. It's not ALL madness..
- feralchimp 15y agoTalking about the Firefox plugin to workaround site blocking now...popcorn...
- ukgent 15y agoFoxyProxy!
- sp332 15y agoNo, that only works against blocking traffic. SOPA would remove the DNS entry from the .COM domain. It's an attack at the DNS level so using a proxy won't work. You'd need something like the MAFIAFire plugin to keep a "shadow" DNS going.
- apotheon 15y agoThat's the extension they must have been discussing, because it's the extension Mozilla was pressured to remove from its listings.
- esmevane 15y agoI'm so glad to hear that there's a mild representation from a few voices of reason. Trying to drum up any sort of attention from my Facebook/Twitter list is just frustrating and had left me very disheartened.
- davidhansen 15y agoThat's not the madness of the legislative process. You'll witness the madness play out when the legislators, having given the plebes their "voice", ignore every single one of them and proceed with graduating the bill to a full vote. Which will likely pass.
- boredguy8 15y agoZoe Lofgren's statements were really good, and her criticisms of the way the hearing was structured (5 for, 1 against, no engineers) were compelling. Her question of, "How many sites would you want to see taken down?" and the dodging is telling, too. And Darrell Issa did a phenomenal job calling into question the need for the legislation because of the function of the ITC & usefulness of administrative law solutions already in place. Wow, Dennis Ross (R-FL) apparently doesn't understand that free speech protections apply to the GOVERNMENT, not to business. "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech..." So yes, when Google takes down a site, it's not unconstitutional. When the government does it, in some instances, that is unconstitutional.
- granitepail 15y agoI completely agree. Mr. Watts was embarrassing to watch -- his slanted opinion and childish domination of the dialogue was less than coy. I grew sick to my stomach listening to him constantly derail Oyama's statements. He kept demanding terse answers to questions that hardly had any relevance to the matter at hand and only served to make her seem clueluess. Lofgren came on like a breath of fresh air. Not only did she actually seem INFORMED on the matter, but she did well to reveal that the opposition to this bill is not comprised of greedy tech companies who fear they would lose business, but all walks of Americans who are afraid that this would negatively impact our lives and our economy. *edits for clarity
- _delirium 15y agoI agree on those two, but unfortunately I haven't heard much encouraging come from anyone else. Two people on a 38-member committee is not a strong showing...
- inmygarage 15y agoThe person speaking now has pointed out that there are 5 people in favor of the bill and only 1 speaking against it. She also lamented the fact that there are zero technical experts speaking.
- feralchimp 15y ago"I object to this bill in its current form because I believe it fails to use existing tools [injunctive relief] and does a worse job than those existing tools at solving this problem." - Mr. Issa (for the micro-win) Unclear whether Mr. Issa's alternative bill (yet to be seen, focused on empowering the FTC to issue injuctions) would allow for DNS-based remedies, whether the injunctions would take more traditional forms like fines/C+D/damages, etc.
- davedx 15y ago"...protect American jobs..." "...innocent civilians and American soldiers at risk..." Who would have thought BitTorrent was such a threat to American civilisation?
- westinghouse 15y ago...and has been destroying the country for over a decade.
- Groxx 15y agoWell yeah, look what it did to the housing market!
- freehunter 15y agoI'm not able to watch this while sitting at work, but... did they really make the argument that not having SOPA would put soldiers at risk? I don't see how that... I... what?
- click170 15y agoHow unfortunate. Ms. Jackson-Lee seems to have fallen for the fallacious argument that every file that was downloaded would have otherwise been bought if piracy wasn't a viable option. This does not bode well for the future...
- feralchimp 15y ago"stealing our nation's genius" FAIL. Genius, like digital bits, are not zero sum. This isn't digital Highlander; a kid pirating a film does not magically soak up (and away) the genius of the auteur.
- mirkules 15y agoThe solution, of course, is to stifle our nation's genius so that nobody can steal it. Nice Highlander metaphor, btw.
- click170 15y agoIs there a chat room we can go to discuss the stream live so we aren't increasing the signal to noise ratio here?
- veyron 15y agoIs there anyone liveblogging the proceedings?
- feralchimp 15y agoAnyone object to me using this comments thread to do that?
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- feralchimp 15y agoMr. Ross's "I think simply" folksy routine makes me want to slap a bitch.
- angersock 15y agoAlso the random pandering involving child pornography. THINK OF THE CHILDREN. Gah.
- invalidOrTaken 15y agoDid Mr. Ross just equate government censorship with corporate page takedowns? The difference: one is prohibited by the Constitution, one is not.
- tobinfricke 15y agoI think you mean 'equate'; equivocation is a deceptive/evasive form of speech.
- invalidOrTaken 15y agoThank you; edited.
- feralchimp 15y agoThey need to chill with drawing parallels between child porn and copyrighted movies. It's technically distinct and morally distinct. Just...no.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- namidark 15y agoMr Rogs(Ross?) statements are ridiculous and he's not giving the female (lawyer?) a chance to respond and fully explain what he's asking -- and then he switches to CP as a defense in eliminating our free speech on the internet
- feralchimp 15y ago"This isn't to protect the big dogs in Hollywood. This is for [set builders, etc.]" So are those guys still getting paid, or aren't they? Are movies still making money, or aren't they?
- mkarazin 15y agoDid Rep Dennis Ross just say (paraphrased) Mastercard thanks you for your effort? He's a co sponsor of the bill and doesn't seem to have a full grasp on its scope. His examples of why it is good seem very specific and not the majority case.
- spwmoni 15y ago"Silicone Valley." Yep, Waters sure sounds informed.
- uptown 15y agoOr how about "Solidan O'Brien"
- feralchimp 15y ago"silicone valley" Mispronunciation win!
- brohee 15y agoIs that that place near LA producing 80% of the world porn?
- dmauro 15y agoFinally someone is asking the right question. Thank you Ms. Waters.
- ggwicz 15y agoPlease just stop. The people/bands I download are not ones I'd pay for right out of the gate. For example: Pink Floyd. I hear a lot about them, but don't know if I'd like them. So I downloaded some of their popular albums for free and gave them a listen. After recovering from the awesomeness, I've since bought two of those albums on iTunes, and yesterday 3 friends and I each dropped $78 on tickets for a concert with one of the old band members. If I could only pay for it, which is the record company's ideal world, I would've seen the $16.99 price tag on iTunes and not taken the chance of listening to it. The people downloading something illegally are, for the most part, not the same people who'd be paying for it.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- kijin 15y ago> the music industry is hemorrhaging money [citation required]
- libraryatnight 15y agoThat's what I was going to ask. Many papers I find sifting through looking for evidence supporting this, actually refute this claim. So I'm curious what sources this poster is using.
- nissimk 15y agoHere's a citation arguing that pirated content has no impact on DVD sales "With respect to the impact of piracy on sales, we use the television broadcast as an exogenous demand shock and find that the availability of pirated content at the time of broadcast has no effect on post broadcast DVD sales gains.": http://www.heinz.cmu.edu/~rtelang/SmithTelang.pdf http://www.heinz.cmu.edu/~rtelang/SmithTelang.pdf These guys say that pre-release pirated movies result in a 15% decline in box office revenue "We estimate that the net effect of pre-release piracy is approximately a 15% reduction in box office sales.": http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1782924 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1782924
- ggwicz 15y agoPlease just stop. The people/bands I download are not ones I'd pay for right out of the gate. For example: Pink Floyd. I hear a lot about them, but don't know if I'd like them. So I downloaded some of their popular albums for free and gave them a listen. After recovering from the awesomeness, I've since bought two of those albums on iTunes, and yesterday 3 friends and I each dropped $78 on tickets for a concert with one of the old band members. If I could only pay for it, which is the record company's ideal world, I would've seen the $16.99 price tag on iTunes and not taken the chance of listening to it. The people downloading something illegally are, for the most part, not the same people who'd be paying for it.
- spenrose 15y agoIf you know what you believe about SOPA (and its Senate equivalent), ignore the stream, call your Congress critters, and tell them what you think. Then after the vote, call them and thank or complain. No, it's not much, but it's almost certainly more efficacious than voting. Especially since you can legally do it many times.
- ggwicz 15y agoJust watched a guy talk about countries who are using practices like this. He says "the Internet is working just fine there". One of these places is Turkey. A guy got arrested there for talking about a Chuck Palahniuk novel there on some sort of forum or similar.
- dasil003 15y agoWe had to delay the launch of our streaming service in Turkey because our CDN was inexplicably censored by the government without recourse—and having nothing to do with us! So I can point to at least one case of significant material loss for Turkish consumers due to Internet shenanigans.
- ggwicz 15y agoYeah, it's insane. This law isn't that extreme yet but it's a push over the ledge towards censorship (it seems...)
- tomlin 15y agoIf this goes through, it is doubtful that the US will remain the tech startup mecha for very long afterwards. Just about any revolutionary technology could find itself in hot water with this bill. A sad day if this gets passed.
- feralchimp 15y ago"From which countries originate the biggest threats of digital piracy?" "Is China on your list?" "What might be the total losses due to piracy [...] any studies done on that? Does anyone have a more comprehensive solution [than shutting down websites]?" What does Mr. King want to hear? Bomb China and Russia and Sweden because OH NOEZ PIRACY? What. The. Fuck? "Are you aware of state sponsored IP theft? China?" Good god, man.
- feralchimp 15y ago"The #1 way to decrease piracy is to increase the number and quality of legitimate content services on the internet." Preach it, sister.
- polshaw 15y agoThe shift in focus to movie piracy from music piracy (where there are many mature legit content services) is tell here, imo.
- pasbesoin 15y agoThis is simplistic, but I think the people who make the technology work need to (find ways to) stop providing support -- stop enabling -- the Luddites who seek to monopolize it for their own gain. Simply/simplistically put: Unplug them. We'd all be better off.
- feralchimp 15y ago"Is it possible under this legislation that [the largest search engines in Russia and China] could be disappeared from the US DNS system? And if so, how should we expect the Russian and Chinese governments to respond to such action?" - Mr. Cohen
- feralchimp 15y ago"Would you agree that the current piracy landscape makes it much more difficult to start a new fee-based distribution model vs. a free/ad-supported distribution model?" Good question. Piracy status quo, without some sort of crackdown, already skews the "legitimate" distribution models to those that benefit companies with Google's model (e.g. for YouTube).
- isleyaardvark 15y agoI'm not convinced government should be concerned about the effectiveness of different business models.
- zhemao 15y agoI'm pretty sure the internet itself favors an ad-supported distribution model. In a fee-based model, in order to make a profit, you have to limit viewing to those who pay. In an ad-based model, you make more money by getting as many people to view the content as possible. The Internet is very good at spreading content to a lot of people. It is not so good at limiting content to a select group of people.
- josscrowcroft 15y agoJesus, the horror, the horror!
- angersock 15y ago"Google just said that content owners are responsible for rogue websites. That can't be the truth." Yes, truly, in a free market, seller policies cannot possibly influence the creation of market alternatives.
- rafedb 15y agoI can't watch this! lol Most of the things being said just annoys the crap outta me because of how ill-informed the people talking actually are.
- noduerme 15y ago"If we could get Google to index those sites [iTunes over the Pirate Bay] in a way that favored legitimacy..." Hey, duck duck go might get some real legs if they work this one out =)
- westinghouse 15y agoThat sort of intentional favoritism could lead to legal action for search engines. It's happened before.
- feralchimp 15y agoInteresting point about reordering search results to favor known-legit content distribution channels...roughly: "Can we get Google to put Netflix above TPB in search results?" If this is still a terrible idea, it's not an obviously terrible one.
- mMark 15y agoIt's terrible in that a lot of the times smaller organic sites are much more relevant than big-box "trusted" sites. That's why organic search algorithms are good. Furthermore, there's a terrible burden for startups moving into certain spaces if suddenly you can't get ranked because you're not a Trusted source. Plus, controlling search engine neutrality or listing position is not the business of the government or rightsholder. Remember, Google is a private entity.
- feralchimp 15y agoSo instead of framing it in terms of "promoting known-legit" sites, what about "demote known-sketchy" sites? Does that help your concerns about effects on unknowns, startups, etc? All the non-sketchy results should still be organically ranked, right?
- pyrhho 15y agoAltering results (other than to show you the most relevant pages) ruins Google's perceived neutrality. All of a sudden Google becomes liable for showing you something they shouldn't, instead of being a neutral third-party.
- libraryatnight 15y agoIt's scary hearing some of this. I don't think some of these people use the internet, except to find reasons to censor the internet.
- feralchimp 15y ago"Stealin' is stealin' and thieves are people we oughtta deal with!" "If I had my way I'd lock all three of ya in a room and don't come out until you agree." "As a consumer I can't tell who's a thief and who's not a thief. What can Google offer this bill that would allow Google to sign on to this bill?" How is "Google signing on" the key issue here? Is Google the gatekeeper to basic constitutionality in legislation now? "Google would publicly support a "follow the money" approach."
- nextparadigms 15y agoPlus, he kept ignoring the part where she said Google would agree to it if it goes through a strong judicial process, which SOPA doesn't currently.
- airlocksoftware 15y agoSeriously, I have the sickest feeling in the pit of my stomach. These congresspeople don't understand what's going on AT ALL, and the deck is already stacked against anti-SOPA activists. They don't seem to be even discussing the constitutionality of what they're suggesting.
- srdev 15y agoMaybe I'm just cynical, but I think that's because discussing constitutionality isn't a winning strategy. Constitutionality hasn't been a primary concern in the legislative process for a while, especially when internet commerce is involved.
- draggnar 15y agoIMO he's funnier than george dubya
- mmaunder 15y ago10:45am mountain time: Ted Poe (R-TX): "This panel or this committee is made up of former prosecutors, defense lawyers and there are even two former judges here." Consider the conflict of interest that exists when lawyers are making our laws. In this case if this bill passes there will be more laws and legal complexity and consequently more work to go around for everyone on the panel and all their previous and current firms and law school mates. It's like asking a team of developers to get together and vote on whether a problem is best solved by writing more code or doing nothing.
- codyrobbins 15y agoYou’re joking, right? Who would you propose is more qualified to draft the word of the actual laws than lawyers? What lawyers are at their essence are experts in law—the word ‘lawyer’ even has the word ‘law’ in it. It's like asking a team of developers to get together and vote on whether a problem is best solved by writing more code or doing nothing. Who would you ask whether code needs to be written, then? The lawyers who aren’t dealing in law? Housewives? Veterinarians? It’s the same thing with lobbyists—they end up getting hired by government because they are experts in what they are talking about. You’re going to be very hard-pressed to find an expert that doesn’t have some vested interest somewhere in what they’re talking about. Consider the conflict of interest that exists… A common tactic I see when people argue about politics is that because someone could be doing something corrupt then it means that they then therefore are doing it. I could certainly go walk outside and push someone in front of a bus right now, but assuming I’m a murderer just because I could is not a good assumption. Conflicts of interest certainly raise the possibility of wrongdoing and should be scrutinized, but the simple existence of a conflict of interest is not proof of wrongdoing; for that you need not aspersions but, well, proof. I am staunchly against SOPA being enacted without industry input, and I think it’s misguided to try to prop up dying content businesses that aren’t innovating, but spouting conspiracy theories about the politicians passing it for their own benefit isn’t going to help.
- mmaunder 15y agoActually this is an established theory. Here's Dr Clifford Winston, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution chatting to Prof. Russ Roberts of George Mason University about the conflict of interest when lawyers make our laws. They also cover the bar system maintaining artificial scarcity among lawyers, thereby inflating legal fees. http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2011/09/winston_on_lawy.html http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2011/09/winston_on_lawy.htm...
- feralchimp 15y agoRare well-turned to Mr. Deutch: "Follow the money" leads to Google! Google's response: "We spent a ton of time and money to create tools to allow rights holders to identify infringing content."
- UrLicht 15y agoSo I've been doing every google search these clueless legislators have brought up in defense of the act: "You can search for 'free harry potter movie' and watch it for free" "You can go type 'j edgar' into google and piracy links show up above legitimate links" "You can watch breaking dawn online right now, and it's not even out yet" etc... Try them yourself as they bring them up. They're full of bullshit.
- libraryatnight 15y agoI've been doing the same. It's really infuriating listening to these people lie through their teeth, and go mostly unchecked.
- coffeeaddicted 15y agoAlthough it's really not that complicated to find a free stream for Harry Potter movies. I found all of them with just a few minutes checking Google-results, although the quality of the stream wasn't too high. Then again I'm pretty sure I'll continue to find ways to stream Harry Potter movies as well in future no matter if this law passes or not (I might have to search a few more minutes then, that's probably about it).
- throwaway64 15y agohttp://www.livestream.com/sopaproceedings http://www.livestream.com/sopaproceedings re stream for anybody who is having trouble viewing it
- feralchimp 15y ago"We know right now that a young film-maker starting out today will not be able to have a career because of piracy." ORLY? We know that? Someone had better tell the market, which continues to fund (and see returns on) indie films.
- sp332 15y agoThis is really funny, since Justin Bieber claimed recently that his career would never have existed if this law had been applied to him. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/10/justin-bieber-streaming-bill-author-should-be-locked-up.ars http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/10/justin-biebe...
- nextparadigms 15y agoWas there anyone from an organization like EFF invited? Or just representatives from companies? Because I could see how companies could agree to supporting a bill as long as it's viable for them, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's something good for the people, too. Who's actually protecting the interests of people there? All I can see is politicians saying "this SOPA breaking the Internet is nonsense". And yet, they didn't even invite engineers there to testify for that.
- draggnar 15y agoCohmert just proved the point of piracy he searched for some obscure song and found it free illegally but not on iTunes. if it was available then he would have bought it.
- anatoli 15y agoIt pains me that from what he said he took the gigantic leap to "we need to make it more obvious that it's illegal" rather than the tiny one to "we need to find a way to make it easier to get legally".
- libraryatnight 15y ago"I know crime when I see it." Do you?
- feralchimp 15y ago"Nobody has this old track that I love available to buy online, but people offer it online for free. When we talk about following the money, that's pretty impractical if the business is in (for example) China. [...] Why is it too onerous to block sites after probable cause is met and a federal judge concludes the site meets the description of 'dedicated to infringement'?" Fair enough question. When the money is all interior to some foreign country, and doesn't touch typical payment hubs (e.g. Visa), how does "follow the money" address the problem effectively? Well, because putting DNS in the hands of any single government or financial interest is a terrible remedy.
- feralchimp 15y agoPeople in the chamber are now comparing search results on their iPads. So that's something. "Service providers do not have the technical means to do what this bill requires." ^^^^^^^^ more like that. Update: that was Zoe Lofgren again.
- VMG 15y agoIs this the right argument? Should the bill pass once the requirements are there?
- feralchimp 15y agoSorry for not attributing all these...exchange is between a Rep whose nameplate isn't vieible and multiple witnesses, primarily Ms. Oyama. "We have harshly criticized governments whose service providers monitor and censor the actions of their users. [...] How would this legislation affect our diplomacy with nations like Iran, for example?" "When there are realtime events, it's important that content services allow for infrastructure to support realtime public response to those events." "This bill hurts both large and small content intermediaries severely, but in different ways." "We've seen Libyan officials trying to take rivals' YouTube channels out of their national internet stream." "The Justice Department has new responsibilities under SOPA while at the same time we've been talking about downsizing government. Are we creating an unmeetable burden for U.S. Gov as well as content intermediaries?"
- feralchimp 15y agoChair: "I came to this meeting undecided on this bill, and hoping to make up my mind during this discussion, but this discussion is bringing up concerns (e.g. interference with DNSSec) that seem highly problematic. Can the panelists comment on whether this bill would dis-incentivize adoption of more secure standards like DNSSec?" "We disagree." - big content shill Chair: "If you believe these concerns are unfounded, please submit written responses to that specific question explaining why you believe that."..."I'm very concerned that these [DNSSec] experts are not part of this hearing!" Yes bro!
- spydum 15y agoTo quote tptateck as he has recently enlightened me: [quote] I just don't think "it breaks DNSSEC" is the most compelling or intellectually honest argument. I think the honest argument is, "because we don't think any one authority will be an adequate steward of the Internet".[/quote] I think that point is just as salient for SOPA as it is for PROTECT-IP. Don't setup that argument for them to knock down. Keep the focus on holding the copyright infringers accountable, not the service providers in-between.
- feralchimp 15y agoReps now bitching that Google's senior management is not in the room. FUCK YOU, SENATOR. Those people deliver more value per day than you will deliver in your entire career as a public servant. Oh god: "Why not hire some whiz kids?" What a goddamned fool. "We have the brainpower in this country [to design a machine to distinguish copyrighted works from non-copyrighted works]." Actually, no, we don't. Fair use is a thing, holmes.
- jlind 15y agoAnd then cutting off the answer when it's exactly what he doesn't want to hear. Certainly frustrating.
- jshort 15y agoShe clearly explained why it was not do-able, and then he goes on to saying that it is. Hire those "wiz kids" I'm sure they can do it!
- sabat 15y ago"We have the brainpower to take this on." We do? As a non-technical senator, you can make that engineering claim with confidence?
- noduerme 15y agoThere are so many parallels in this to Atlas Shrugged, it almost makes me think Ayn Rand wasn't a sociopath. Who cares how? Just do it! Let the techies submit their "explanations" in writing and we'll duly ignore them. Godforfuckingbid they actually get a word in edgewise on television. The woman from Google was brilliantly concise, and her explanations made absolutely perfect sense. They were countered with "horse is out of the barn" type popularisms, volkish garbage from ignorant senators to their totally illiterate constituency. So much for the last pocket of growth in the American economy; it's gonna be shut down, destroyed. Smarties need to think countermeasures, and let these idiots root around in their own shite for a few years learning that they shouldn't deign to dictate what their betters have the "brainpower" to solve if they themselves can't figure out how.
- noduerme 15y agoThis is SO OFFENSIVE!!! She gives such great, clear technical answers -- they can detect child porn by a combination of reverse image search analysis and manual checks, but they can't visually tell whether a movie or song is licensed to play. Makes sense. "I'm sure we have the technology, we have the brainpower," responds some congrasshole. What fucking idiots these people are. They don't have a right to dictate terms to people smarter than them. After watching this incredibly infuriating thing, I hope they pass it. I hope it passes, and the economy of the US tanks, and it eats itself. Fuck these people, and fuck everyone who voted for them. If you're the only person in the room who has technical expertise, Submit your comments in writing.
- sv123 15y agoHis response to her explanation about how they don't have the technology was "Google does have the technology". These people are all idiots.
- jarin 15y agoYouTube does have automated copyright detection though
- sv123 15y agoYes, but that is different than spidering and blocking every site in the search results that hosts copyrighted content.
- noduerme 15y agoTrue. But it can be gotten around by flipping the video or adding a second soundtrack. Even if it detected that, people would find ways. There's no reason that one yahoo --pun intended-- posting pirated material should be able to screw the whole company. Too much power for the yahoo. Also, un-american, as far as I've been led to believe. Anyway, what about remixes and magazine photos and quotations longer than a paragraph?
- trip42 15y ago
- sabat 15y ago"It's time to try something." "It's time to move." Not if it means breaking the Internet.
- msmith 15y ago12:19PM central time - The chairman, Rep. Smith, was asking whether this bill would impact our ability to implement DNSSEC. He seemed legitimately concerned that it could weaken security on the internet. I have no idea whether there's any basis for concern, but I'm sure we have some DNSSEC experts here on HN. Comments?
- tptacek 15y agoDNSSEC is a bad idea that will damage the Internet. I think it's irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
- spydum 15y agoInteresting position, care to elaborate how DNSSEC is damaging the internet?
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- marshray 15y agoPerhaps. But this bill would breaks DNSSEC for the same reasons that it breaks "infringement-inducing sites". It's going to pose the same difficulty to any other organized security features added to DNS. The result will be chaos.
- tptacek 15y ago
- ThaddeusQuay2 15y agoThese hearings are nothing more than democracy theater, and I'm a bit surprised that otherwise smart people, namely most of those posting on HN, actually believe differently. The government has already shown, many times, its willingness and ability to shut down sites, unilaterally, by simply telling ICANN to redirect where a domain points. SOPA is merely a formalization of that power. I surmise that the best way to let a congressman know that you are serious about this issue is to put a bullet in the head of the congressman sitting next to him. If you aren't willing to go that far to protect your freedom, then you are just as full of hot air as the OWS crowd. I don't expect upvotes on this comment, but I am certain that all of the downvotes will come from cowards, the uniformed, idealists, or agents of the government. DNS is broken, and needs either extreme violence to protect its existing fragility, or an awesome technical improvement that will pry the government's grubby fingers off of it for good. Take your pick as to the best route, but wishing for logic and common sense at these hearings is pointless. EDIT: I should point out the following, for those who think that there really is no need to worry. "Risk of Jail for Ordinary Users: It becomes a felony with a potential 5 year sentence to stream a copyrighted work that would cost more than $2,500 to license, even if you are a totally noncommercial user, e.g. singing a pop song on Facebook." - http://americancensorship.org http://americancensorship.org A felony is a felony is a felony. Once you are guilty of one, your life changes significantly. It all comes down to which law you are willing to break. Just a couple of decades ago, murder and treason were pretty much the only serious crimes. Now, manipulate certain bits in a particular way, and it's treated as almost the same thing. Think about how much we've already lost through our passivity, and how much more we have to lose.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- y3di 15y agoThe hearing is over.
- herbivore 15y agoI would rather download the SOPA Hearing video in 720p HD quality than watch a crappy cheap low quality lowres version. Offer next day 720p/1080p HD version of TV shows and movies and piracy will go down. Even iTunes HD versions are crap, not to mention Netflix 2002-era stream quality.
- sycren 15y agoSo... Tech companies, feel like moving your base of operations to Europe? We really need some investment right now ;)
- sukuriant 15y agoWhat does it take to move to Europe and join a tech-based company there..?
- sycren 15y agotemporary move or permanent? If you find a company interested in hiring you, it should be easy to get a working visa. A permanent move may be more difficult.
- jhancock 15y agoI'm interested in which TLDs and server hosting locales would be best bets for protecting against gov sponsored asset seizures. I would like an EU country to step up to the plate as saying "If the U.S. wants a server taken down or a domain revoked, they have to go through our courts...We will provide fairness and due process to the accused". This may be boom times for migrating to non-.com domains.
- lancewiggs 15y agoThanks everyone for the stream of comments. This law has global implications for how the internet works, or does not work. 1: The real question we should be asking is the source of the SOPA text. It was pretty clearly written by lobbyists, for their clients, and its just as clear that the committee has no idea about the contents. We should be attacking/ranting at the sponsoring companies while helping the congress people to understand through measured lobbying and public action. 2: Larry Lessig's latest book covers the process of making USA's laws extraordinarily well. Congress people are trying to do the right thing, but it's hard to believe laws are made in an unbiased manner when we look at the flow of cash supporting their elections. 3: New Zealand had a similar moment when copyright legislation was debated earlier this year, and the tech community suddenly saw how laws were made. It was a rush job, not pretty and the major parties suffered for it as they took stances which often lacked logic. We now have an election on, wand while it is not a big issue, I expect we will see a lot more support for the Green party, who were the only ones crying foul.
- artursapek 15y agoI can't watch the stream, but the comments here are endlessly interesting.
- HilbertSpace 15y agoLet's see, we're ready for another exciting episode of 'Hackers Go to Washington' or 'As The Real World Turns': Step 1. At a fancy lunch spot on Rodeo Drive a lobbyist gets with someone in Hollywood, and they talk about a Hollywood dream law, e.g., shut down Internet movie sharing or some such, just to pick a hypothetical issue! Wink, wink! Step 2. The lobbyist sells the Hollywood guy on an effort to get the dream law passed. "Sign your check, and we will get started from our M Street offices." They do get started and draft the Hollywood Dream Act. Step 3. The lobbyist finds some Dumb-Dumb legislators on Capital Hill who are not very bright, not doing very well, and need some campaign donations, maybe some trips to Vegas, etc. and hands them copies of the Hollywood Dream Act and some campaign donations, trips to Vegas, etc. Maybe if we did some searching we could find a list of the Dumb-Dumbs? Ah, that would assume that Dumb-Dumbs exist! I ask you, are there any Dumb-Dumbs on Capital Hill? Step 4. The Dumb-Dumbs hold hearings and look like they are about to get the Hollywood Dream Act passed. Step 5. People who oppose the Hollywood Dream Act, and there is no shortage, get up on their hind legs, write checks to other lobbyists on M Street, and the battle is on. Legislators who oppose the Hollywood Dream Act get campaign donations, trips to Vegas, etc. Step 6. The Hollywood Dream Act dies in committee or in negotiations between the House and Senate or has some killer amendments added, etc. Ah, it was always just the 'Hollywood Dumb-Dumb Public Wet Dream Act' or 'Who Gets Screwed As the World Turns' anyway! Net, M Street gets richer; both the Dumb-Dumbs and all the opposing legislators get campaign donations, which they don't return, and trips to Vegas, but nothing real happens. It's just Hollywood. Naw, no one would ever do anything so stupid. That would be called a 'scam', and that's SUCH a pejorative locution! We can be SURE that M Street and Capitol Hill would NEVER engage in anything like a scam, can't we?
- nazgulnarsil 15y agoSure, but the fact remains that bullshit DOES get passed that then has to be fought in courts for YEARS before it is overturned as unconstitutional. In the meantime people get arrested or heavily fined for bullshit. It might not have happened to someone you personally know but bullshit laws SHATTER LIVES.
- HilbertSpace 15y ago
- nazgulnarsil 15y agoWatching the legislative process for people who claim to believe in democracy is sort of like actually reading the bible for people who claim to be christian.
- 1010101001 15y agoAre these hearings that house.gov streams archived somewhere? If not, why?
- shmerl 15y agoDid you find any links?
- cowmix 15y agoI can not find an archive of it.. arg!
- 1010101001 15y agoSome House hearings are archived at judiciary.edgeboss.net. But not this one. Some House hearings have transcripts at judiciary.house.gov/hearings/transcripts/. But not this one. I decided to read the bill instead. I highly recommend it. The definitions alone are worth the read. What if content is not addressed to a "location"? What if there is no "site"? What if a network is not accesible to the public?
- 101001011 15y agoIt's up! There's now a .wmv for download. That was pretty quick. Thanks to the staff who are responsible for this. Much appreciated!
- radagaisus 15y agoThis seems like an appropriate place to write this. I'm a self taught programmer. If it wasn't for the internets I would be a pretty poor guy. Spolsky gave a nice answer on SO about teaching a newcomer how to program. He listed SICP, k&R and Code. I read SICP online and I downloaded a version of K&R. Both books had a fundamentally awesome impact on me and I just decided I should buy them along with Code. All the tech books I've ever read I read online with the exception of The Definitive Guide to Action Script 5, which cost me 50$. SICP is on sale for 80$ K&R is 50$ If I'm poor (or: a kid) I don't have 50$. Denying me the option to steal this books without harming anyone will just make me less educated.
- marshray 15y agoSICP is full text online by the publisher, you didn't "steal" it. You didn't need to "steal" K&R. It's a classic, but there are a whole lot of successful programmers who've never read it. I don't know where you are, but everywhere I've lived in the US there's at least one very cheap book on C in every used book sale or public library. Today of course, we have more information about programming and Computer Science free on the web than anyone could ever have time to read. I do buy relatively expensive computer books today when they fit my budget, but it's a rare book that has information I couldn't find on the web.
- radagaisus 15y agoNo, I didn't need to steal K&R, but it's better than online tutorials. If there's one thing that you should be allowed to steal, it's education.
- shmerl 15y agoDid anyone record the stream? I couldn't see it live.
- Encryptor 15y agoIf they want war, then we'll give them war. I'll write down the IP addresses of all sites I use and I won't use DNS anymore!
- drivebyacct2 15y agoIs there any silver lining here? Despite the over whelming feeling of disgust I have for these godgie old farts running this country who think they know a damn thing about the Internet, I can't help but wonder if passage of this bill would finally ignite adoption of a better success to the Internet. Something where security and privacy are baked in from the beginning and not an add-on.