3 ms·

I've heard this response, but I'm not convinced that this explanation really changes the issue substantially, or exonerates the Congressmen in question. As it s

I've heard this response, but I'm not convinced that this explanation really changes the issue substantially, or exonerates the Congressmen in question. As it stands, willful infringement must be proven to land any meaningful award in a copyright case. (A recent example http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/jammie-thomas-retrial-verdict.ars http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/jammie-thoma...) So while factually accurate, I don't entirely see how it minimizes the damage caused by SOPA, as the copyright holders have never had much difficulty demonstrating willful infringement to date.

nl 15y ago
So while factually accurate, I don't entirely see how it minimizes the damage caused by SOPA, as the copyright holders have never had much difficulty demonstrating willful infringement to date. I agree with this, but the factual inaccuracy is important. Given that these sites are run by the bill sponsors it would be pretty easy to show they are not willful infringes. Worse, by publishing this story it makes SOPA easier to defend - the authors can get up and say "look - SOPA won't wreck the internet. I made a mistake and did the wrong thing, and the law explicitly took that into account"
- cookiecaper 15y ago
  Isn't a potential solution to the question of willful infringement as simple as notifying the Congressperson's office of the problem? If they continue to host the content, they cannot claim ignorance anymore.
  - nl 15y ago
    That may be true, but there is still fair-use.
    - roc 15y ago
      In any event Fair Use is an affirmative defense, not a right written into SOPA. So the only "fair use" component to this discussion is "no, the legislators may never suffer criminal penalties... but they still are at risk of having their domain removed from the internet until they can convince the censors to reinstate it." And each new piece of media posted to their site opens the operator up to another round of "censored until proven innocent".

nl 15y ago

So while factually accurate, I don't entirely see how it minimizes the damage caused by SOPA, as the copyright holders have never had much difficulty demonstrating willful infringement to date. I agree with this, but the factual inaccuracy is important. Given that these sites are run by the bill sponsors it would be pretty easy to show they are not willful infringes. Worse, by publishing this story it makes SOPA easier to defend - the authors can get up and say "look - SOPA won't wreck the internet. I made a mistake and did the wrong thing, and the law explicitly took that into account"

cookiecaper 15y ago
Isn't a potential solution to the question of willful infringement as simple as notifying the Congressperson's office of the problem? If they continue to host the content, they cannot claim ignorance anymore.
- nl 15y ago
  That may be true, but there is still fair-use.
  - roc 15y ago
    In any event Fair Use is an affirmative defense, not a right written into SOPA. So the only "fair use" component to this discussion is "no, the legislators may never suffer criminal penalties... but they still are at risk of having their domain removed from the internet until they can convince the censors to reinstate it." And each new piece of media posted to their site opens the operator up to another round of "censored until proven innocent".