3 ms·

Yeah, I can see your point but this too feels like its really reaching for something that's just not there. They should be held to a higher standard but our str

Yeah, I can see your point but this too feels like its really reaching for something that's just not there. They should be held to a higher standard but our strong opinions about SOPA seem to be blocking our ability to look at this realistically. The example in the post can be compared to any one of us embedding a video on a personal site or blog. It's really obvious the guy isn't willfully infringing. We can be technical and argue semantics all day but in the end there really is a big difference between a representative supporting legislation we disagree with possibly technically violating that same legislation with a seemingly innocent video embed and a website that provides a search feature allowing you to access hundreds of thousands of copyrighted files. Big difference. There is definitely a point to be made about the alleged hypocrisy but in the end nit-picking little things like this and arguing semantics comes off as petty to people and could really do more harm to the opponents of SOPA than good.

DanBC 15y ago
> there really is a big difference between a representative supporting legislation we disagree with possibly technically violating that same legislation with a seemingly innocent video embed and a website that provides a search feature allowing you to access hundreds of thousands of copyrighted files. Big difference. Existing law has been misused, as mentioned in other places in the thread. There's nothing to say that this law will not be similarly misused. See, for example, the fact that Google has digital-finger-printing to prevent copyright material being used, even if it's legitimately being used under Fair Use.
- billpatrianakos 15y ago
  Yeah, I agree the law's been misused and SOPA will almost certainly be misused to. My point is that this argument over the representative is kind of petty. This shouldn't be about who's doing what and who's got some double standard. Instead the discussion should just focus on the bill on its own and framing the discussion like has been done in the post makes our side (yeah, our side, for some reason people think I'm for SOPA) look petty or like we've run out of good arguments.
  - DanBC 15y ago
    No. Demonstrating that some people are willing to use weird law to enforce copyright protection, and that some of those people do not understand existing copyright law themselves, is a useful exercise. The point is to use their language to show how daft the law could be. That's maybe why it feels petty to you, because it is a stupid thing, but it's a stupid thing that they could well end up criminalizing. The politicians talk of "thieves" and "criminals" and "crooks". Using their language it is wrong for someone to have stolen content on their homepage.

DanBC 15y ago

> there really is a big difference between a representative supporting legislation we disagree with possibly technically violating that same legislation with a seemingly innocent video embed and a website that provides a search feature allowing you to access hundreds of thousands of copyrighted files. Big difference. Existing law has been misused, as mentioned in other places in the thread. There's nothing to say that this law will not be similarly misused. See, for example, the fact that Google has digital-finger-printing to prevent copyright material being used, even if it's legitimately being used under Fair Use.

billpatrianakos 15y ago
Yeah, I agree the law's been misused and SOPA will almost certainly be misused to. My point is that this argument over the representative is kind of petty. This shouldn't be about who's doing what and who's got some double standard. Instead the discussion should just focus on the bill on its own and framing the discussion like has been done in the post makes our side (yeah, our side, for some reason people think I'm for SOPA) look petty or like we've run out of good arguments.
- DanBC 15y ago
  No. Demonstrating that some people are willing to use weird law to enforce copyright protection, and that some of those people do not understand existing copyright law themselves, is a useful exercise. The point is to use their language to show how daft the law could be. That's maybe why it feels petty to you, because it is a stupid thing, but it's a stupid thing that they could well end up criminalizing. The politicians talk of "thieves" and "criminals" and "crooks". Using their language it is wrong for someone to have stolen content on their homepage.