5 ms·

SOPA is a big deal and US will be worse off for it beacuse US based companies will be put at a disadvantage ab-inito. However, I think the people campaigning f

SOPA is a big deal and US will be worse off for it beacuse US based companies will be put at a disadvantage ab-inito. However, I think the people campaigning for opposition have failed to use 'normal' words to explain how it will affect the masses. For us here that have startups and are interested in these things, words like 'infringe copyright', 'safe-habour' etc make sense. All 90% of the masses need to know is this: If you paste that funny clip you saw on MTV on your Facebook, MTV can shut down Facebook or sue you. If you put that image you Googled on your blog, ALL your adsense money can be seized. If you Tweet it, you Twitter account can be closed. When 'the masses' hear this, it would make no sense cos it doesn't. We should "dumb down" the message to get it accross to the 'mainstream' populace I just wonder why the US legislature would want to deliberately cripple US's strength on the web.

larrik 15y ago
Or better yet: If you paste that funny clip you saw on MTV on your Facebook, MTV can press criminal charges and send you to jail.
- Lukeas14 15y ago
  Only if you can clearly point out the section of the bill that would allow this to happen. Otherwise, FUD claims will kill all credibility and we'll have a Sarah Palin "Death Panels" situation.
  - lancewiggs 15y ago
    Except, sadly, those death panels comments actually resonated with some folks. There is a place for serious statements, but also a place, again sadly, for soaring rhetoric.
lachyg 15y ago
What happens if there servers and legal entity is in another country?
- matwood 15y ago
  Who cares is the OPs point. The general populace doesn't think or care where a server is located. The message needs to be framed in a way that mainstream people understand.
  - lachyg 15y ago
    I understand that, I'm just curious from a personal point of view.
- wanorris 15y ago
  If a site uses a US based hosting company, domain name (e.g. .com), or payment processor, those services may still be cut off, even if the servers are out of the country. I doubt they would have any legal basis for extraditing a non-US-citizen for a SOPA violation, but there have been attempts to pursue charges against foreign citizens for notable DMCA violations if they enter the US, so that could continue to be the case with SOPA. If a US citizen uses a foreign server, I doubt that would shield them from legal action.
  - chimeracoder 15y ago
    I never understood why the US gets to own the .com TLD.
    - jonknee 15y ago
      Because the US created it, along with the internet. Luckily it's no longer maintained by the Department of Defense. http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc920 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc920
      - calloc 15y ago
        No, no longer the DoD but Department of Commerce ...
  - SteveArmstrong 15y ago
Dn_Ab 15y ago
This is not just a risk to the U.S. Europe, Australia and especially the U.K. look to the U.S. for precedent. If this passes it is likely that they would use it as a basis to extend this nonsense to their respective jurisdictions while justifying it as necessary for protective or economic reasons. Then these countries will have less of a leg to stand on when criticizing less open countries; who will be able to say: actually you are no different to us, the only difference is that we are more honest about the fact that we prioritize other things above freedom and cultural advancement.
- dclaysmith 15y ago
  Looks like the EU has already come out against SOPA. https://torrentfreak.com/eu-adopts-resolution-against-us-domains-seziures-111117/ https://torrentfreak.com/eu-adopts-resolution-against-us-dom...
  - Dn_Ab 15y ago
    Ah thanks. That is something positive at least.
  - dhimes 15y ago
    cnn and msnbc don't appear to be following the story at all.
    - waqf 15y ago
      No surprises there since CNN is a content provider and MS is also believed to be pro-SOPA: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3249396 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3249396
      - dhimes 15y ago
        Following up, I asked my wife last night and she had heard nothing about it.
UrLicht 15y ago
"I just wonder why the US legislature would want to deliberately cripple US's strength on the web." I dunno, my guess is there must be a lot of money involved.
wmf 15y ago
If you paste that funny clip you saw on MTV on your Facebook, MTV can shut down Facebook or sue you. Video is an interesting case since much of it is explicitly embeddable; you can't encourage embedding and then call it copyright infringement.
- SoftwareMaven 15y ago
  YouTube provides the embedding; WB et al the content. It's easy to get into that situation.
- aaam 15y ago
  The problem is that while one part of the corporation can encourage you to share that video, this does not prevent any another part of the same corporation to claim that this act is "infringement? All they need to do is can claim "infringement" without having to prove anything, without any obligation of fairness, correctness, and no penalty when wrong. After that your website is taken offline, your income is frozen, your income disappears and only then you may sue to get it all back, without any possibility of being compensated for your time and expenses. The problem is that there is no neutral, objective oversight before damage is done and no compensation of damages caused by wrongful enforcement, which leaves us without protection against overzealous, perhaps even full automated, enforcement.

larrik 15y ago

Or better yet: If you paste that funny clip you saw on MTV on your Facebook, MTV can press criminal charges and send you to jail.

Lukeas14 15y ago
Only if you can clearly point out the section of the bill that would allow this to happen. Otherwise, FUD claims will kill all credibility and we'll have a Sarah Palin "Death Panels" situation.
- lancewiggs 15y ago
  Except, sadly, those death panels comments actually resonated with some folks. There is a place for serious statements, but also a place, again sadly, for soaring rhetoric.

lachyg 15y ago

What happens if there servers and legal entity is in another country?

matwood 15y ago
Who cares is the OPs point. The general populace doesn't think or care where a server is located. The message needs to be framed in a way that mainstream people understand.
- lachyg 15y ago
  I understand that, I'm just curious from a personal point of view.
wanorris 15y ago
If a site uses a US based hosting company, domain name (e.g. .com), or payment processor, those services may still be cut off, even if the servers are out of the country. I doubt they would have any legal basis for extraditing a non-US-citizen for a SOPA violation, but there have been attempts to pursue charges against foreign citizens for notable DMCA violations if they enter the US, so that could continue to be the case with SOPA. If a US citizen uses a foreign server, I doubt that would shield them from legal action.
- chimeracoder 15y ago
  I never understood why the US gets to own the .com TLD.
  - jonknee 15y ago
    Because the US created it, along with the internet. Luckily it's no longer maintained by the Department of Defense. http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc920 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc920
    - calloc 15y ago
      No, no longer the DoD but Department of Commerce ...
- SteveArmstrong 15y ago

Dn_Ab 15y ago

This is not just a risk to the U.S. Europe, Australia and especially the U.K. look to the U.S. for precedent. If this passes it is likely that they would use it as a basis to extend this nonsense to their respective jurisdictions while justifying it as necessary for protective or economic reasons. Then these countries will have less of a leg to stand on when criticizing less open countries; who will be able to say: actually you are no different to us, the only difference is that we are more honest about the fact that we prioritize other things above freedom and cultural advancement.

dclaysmith 15y ago
Looks like the EU has already come out against SOPA. https://torrentfreak.com/eu-adopts-resolution-against-us-domains-seziures-111117/ https://torrentfreak.com/eu-adopts-resolution-against-us-dom...
- Dn_Ab 15y ago
  Ah thanks. That is something positive at least.
- dhimes 15y ago
  cnn and msnbc don't appear to be following the story at all.
  - waqf 15y ago
    No surprises there since CNN is a content provider and MS is also believed to be pro-SOPA: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3249396 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3249396
    - dhimes 15y ago
      Following up, I asked my wife last night and she had heard nothing about it.

UrLicht 15y ago

"I just wonder why the US legislature would want to deliberately cripple US's strength on the web." I dunno, my guess is there must be a lot of money involved.

wmf 15y ago

If you paste that funny clip you saw on MTV on your Facebook, MTV can shut down Facebook or sue you. Video is an interesting case since much of it is explicitly embeddable; you can't encourage embedding and then call it copyright infringement.

SoftwareMaven 15y ago
YouTube provides the embedding; WB et al the content. It's easy to get into that situation.
aaam 15y ago
The problem is that while one part of the corporation can encourage you to share that video, this does not prevent any another part of the same corporation to claim that this act is "infringement? All they need to do is can claim "infringement" without having to prove anything, without any obligation of fairness, correctness, and no penalty when wrong. After that your website is taken offline, your income is frozen, your income disappears and only then you may sue to get it all back, without any possibility of being compensated for your time and expenses. The problem is that there is no neutral, objective oversight before damage is done and no compensation of damages caused by wrongful enforcement, which leaves us without protection against overzealous, perhaps even full automated, enforcement.