9 ms·

I've read the bill at least twice now and I still don't see the doomsday scenario described many times here on HN. I get the slippery-slope argument, that SOPA

I've read the bill at least twice now and I still don't see the doomsday scenario described many times here on HN. I get the slippery-slope argument, that SOPA is just one step closer to true censorship and control over the internet, but I don't think that is enough to get so upset about (its a very small step, with obvious workarounds) Somebody please point out to me: 1) Where it says that Youtube, Facebook, Google are affected by this bill. -- It looks to me like it only affects sites on foreign domains or foreign servers. They explicitly say that these popular sites are not affected. 2) Where it says that ISP's, hosting companies, domain registrars or even sites focused on user-generated content are required to actively monitor their data and their customers' data for infringing content and are held liable if they fail to monitor. -- It appears to me that the bill specifically says they DON'T have to do this; that they only have to make reasonable attempts at prevention and then are required to take data down when given a take-down request. 3) How tor would be made illegal under this bill. -- It looks like only tools designed or marketed for the primary purpose of circumventing this bill are made illegal. That means DeSOPA and MAFIAAfire, but tor seems to be out of reach. Back on topic of the article, perhaps there isn't a conspiracy here, perhaps media outlets genuinely don't see what the big deal is. I agree that the bill is mostly useless and mostly supported by an aging industry, and I don't support it. But I don't see the big deal either. So, somebody please enlighten me because the sensational fog is obstructing my view.

sp332 15y ago
SOPA doesn't require sites to monitor their users. The complaints I've heard: 1. It requires sites to be removed from DNS if a copyright complaint is made against them. Specifically, the removal avoids due process. The copyright holder doesn't need a court order to have the offending site taken down. 2. Sites are held responsible for content their users upload. So e.g. Mediafire would be taken down because of content the users uploaded.
- thebigshane 15y ago
  Regarding your #1: My interpretation (which may very well be wrong of course, IANAL), is that the copyright holder DOES need either a court order or Attorney General intervention to remove a site from DNS. Regarding your #2: Again, my interpretation is that this only applies to foreign sites (either foreign domains or foreign servers)
  - dissident 15y ago
    I wouldn't use "there isn't enough due process" to describe why SOPA is a terrible bill, or any similar legal argument. Besides, many of those problems have been fixed in the Manager's amendment. DNS blacklisting as a concept is simply unacceptable. The way it is applied in SOPA requires that a certain classification of DNS caching servers must pretend like a website does not exist, which reduces trust in domestic caching servers and stifles DNSSEC. If people move to foreign DNS (or local caching servers), which is incredibly easy, the entire thing is circumvented. But a tricky side-effect takes place: the system is now balkanized. Servers in the U.S. believe the naming system to resolve to one IP, and servers everywhere else resolve to something completely different. This balkanizing effect can break the effectiveness of CDNs, can congest Internet traffic, and overall reduces the credibility of the naming system. Passing SOPA would mean other countries would follow in the same footsteps. Once every country believes the delegation chain can resolve to whatever they want to, what is the point in an international naming system? These are only some of the problems with DNS blacklisting -- nevermind the security problems -- which are not worth it especially considering it is so easily circumvented. Additional problems with the bill, such as the vague wording which may consider Tor a tool for "circumventing" DNS blacklists and, therefore, illegal, demonstrate a huge lack of forward thinking and an unsustainable approach to copyright enforcement. The doomsday scenario is that government sticks its foot in Internet policy and communication and pretends it actually has the reasonable capability to prevent piracy. It will never have that capability without large-scale violations of privacy. There are also a good amount of talks regarding the precedent SOPA may have for general purpose computing and a whole host of other sensitive topics. I don't think it's responsible to just point at provisions in the bill and say "well it seems to add enough oversight". Besides, the bill encourages preemptive takedowns by providing immunity. The tech industry behaviors that will result would be devastating.
    - thebigshane 15y ago
      I think you have great points but I don't believe they sufficiently support the doomsday freak-out I'm witnessing. DNS blacklisting is already happening in the US and all over the world (ICE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Immigration_and_Customs_Enforcement#Intellectual_Property http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Immigration_and_Customs_En... and DNSBL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNSBL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNSBL). I admit we are already on a slippery slope here with blacklisting, but I think most of your DNS comments could be attributed to failures in the design of DNS (and CDNs) themselves. If you want trust, security, and prevention from censorship (as I do too), DNS is not your answer. I hope namecoin better address these issues (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Namecoin https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Namecoin). If you are scared of censorship, don't rely on infrastructure that is owned by parties you don't trust. SOPA supporters must know this will not stop piracy (the bill is contradictorily named, I know), but surely, it would minimize the piracy and counterfeiting that effects the non-tech-savvy American masses. And I truly believe that is their intent. Personally, I don't think we should be legislating the Internet at all, but we've already started, and although future legislation on this slippery slope could be devastating, this bill seems to be fairly neutered. Good issues are being brought up with the discussion of SOPA, but SOPA itself is not the end of the internet.
saucetenuto 15y ago
I can't speak to your points 2 or 3, but section 103 (which governs ad and payment processors) applies to domestic sites as well. If I've understood correctly, Youtube couldn't be blocked, but could be forbidden to host advertisements - which would kill it just as surely.
- thebigshane 15y ago
  Well, it is definitely ambiguous, but it looks like section 103 does apply to domestic sites. However, they do focus on a particular class of sites: U.S.-directed site is primarily designed or operated for the purpose of, has only limited purpose or use other than, or is marketed by its operator or another acting in concert with that operator for use in, offering goods or services in a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates, a violation of [...some existing laws...] While, I admit that is also a bit ambiguous, it would be rather easy for a lawyer to claim YouTube has a purpose beyond offering infringing or counterfeit content. EDIT: The Manager's Amendment further clarifies this section as follows: the site is primarily designed or operated for the purpose of, has only lim- ited purpose or use other than, or is mar- keted by its operator or another acting in concert with that operator primarily for use in, offering goods or services in viola- tion of— [...some existing laws...]
  - chc 15y ago
    But it would be even easier for an opposing lawyer to claim that YouTube "is marketed by its operator … in a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates, a violation of [...some existing laws...]." Any site that allows users to submit content is predictably enabling a violation of copyright law. This is how the copyright cartel already views things — it seems unlikely that they would become more conservative if SOPA passes.
    - thebigshane 15y ago
      After re-reading the Manager's Amendment, I think that quote is no longer applicative. It looks like allowing user generated/submitted content is no longer enough under SOPA. However, it's a good thing that language was removed! So perhaps, this is an example of the benefit of the outrage over this bill. But at what point do we look back and decide that the changes are sufficient and stop the mob?

sp332 15y ago

SOPA doesn't require sites to monitor their users. The complaints I've heard: 1. It requires sites to be removed from DNS if a copyright complaint is made against them. Specifically, the removal avoids due process. The copyright holder doesn't need a court order to have the offending site taken down. 2. Sites are held responsible for content their users upload. So e.g. Mediafire would be taken down because of content the users uploaded.

thebigshane 15y ago
Regarding your #1: My interpretation (which may very well be wrong of course, IANAL), is that the copyright holder DOES need either a court order or Attorney General intervention to remove a site from DNS. Regarding your #2: Again, my interpretation is that this only applies to foreign sites (either foreign domains or foreign servers)
- dissident 15y ago
  I wouldn't use "there isn't enough due process" to describe why SOPA is a terrible bill, or any similar legal argument. Besides, many of those problems have been fixed in the Manager's amendment. DNS blacklisting as a concept is simply unacceptable. The way it is applied in SOPA requires that a certain classification of DNS caching servers must pretend like a website does not exist, which reduces trust in domestic caching servers and stifles DNSSEC. If people move to foreign DNS (or local caching servers), which is incredibly easy, the entire thing is circumvented. But a tricky side-effect takes place: the system is now balkanized. Servers in the U.S. believe the naming system to resolve to one IP, and servers everywhere else resolve to something completely different. This balkanizing effect can break the effectiveness of CDNs, can congest Internet traffic, and overall reduces the credibility of the naming system. Passing SOPA would mean other countries would follow in the same footsteps. Once every country believes the delegation chain can resolve to whatever they want to, what is the point in an international naming system? These are only some of the problems with DNS blacklisting -- nevermind the security problems -- which are not worth it especially considering it is so easily circumvented. Additional problems with the bill, such as the vague wording which may consider Tor a tool for "circumventing" DNS blacklists and, therefore, illegal, demonstrate a huge lack of forward thinking and an unsustainable approach to copyright enforcement. The doomsday scenario is that government sticks its foot in Internet policy and communication and pretends it actually has the reasonable capability to prevent piracy. It will never have that capability without large-scale violations of privacy. There are also a good amount of talks regarding the precedent SOPA may have for general purpose computing and a whole host of other sensitive topics. I don't think it's responsible to just point at provisions in the bill and say "well it seems to add enough oversight". Besides, the bill encourages preemptive takedowns by providing immunity. The tech industry behaviors that will result would be devastating.
  - thebigshane 15y ago
    I think you have great points but I don't believe they sufficiently support the doomsday freak-out I'm witnessing. DNS blacklisting is already happening in the US and all over the world (ICE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Immigration_and_Customs_Enforcement#Intellectual_Property http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Immigration_and_Customs_En... and DNSBL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNSBL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNSBL). I admit we are already on a slippery slope here with blacklisting, but I think most of your DNS comments could be attributed to failures in the design of DNS (and CDNs) themselves. If you want trust, security, and prevention from censorship (as I do too), DNS is not your answer. I hope namecoin better address these issues (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Namecoin https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Namecoin). If you are scared of censorship, don't rely on infrastructure that is owned by parties you don't trust. SOPA supporters must know this will not stop piracy (the bill is contradictorily named, I know), but surely, it would minimize the piracy and counterfeiting that effects the non-tech-savvy American masses. And I truly believe that is their intent. Personally, I don't think we should be legislating the Internet at all, but we've already started, and although future legislation on this slippery slope could be devastating, this bill seems to be fairly neutered. Good issues are being brought up with the discussion of SOPA, but SOPA itself is not the end of the internet.

saucetenuto 15y ago

I can't speak to your points 2 or 3, but section 103 (which governs ad and payment processors) applies to domestic sites as well. If I've understood correctly, Youtube couldn't be blocked, but could be forbidden to host advertisements - which would kill it just as surely.

thebigshane 15y ago
Well, it is definitely ambiguous, but it looks like section 103 does apply to domestic sites. However, they do focus on a particular class of sites: U.S.-directed site is primarily designed or operated for the purpose of, has only limited purpose or use other than, or is marketed by its operator or another acting in concert with that operator for use in, offering goods or services in a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates, a violation of [...some existing laws...] While, I admit that is also a bit ambiguous, it would be rather easy for a lawyer to claim YouTube has a purpose beyond offering infringing or counterfeit content. EDIT: The Manager's Amendment further clarifies this section as follows: the site is primarily designed or operated for the purpose of, has only lim- ited purpose or use other than, or is mar- keted by its operator or another acting in concert with that operator primarily for use in, offering goods or services in viola- tion of— [...some existing laws...]
- chc 15y ago
  But it would be even easier for an opposing lawyer to claim that YouTube "is marketed by its operator … in a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates, a violation of [...some existing laws...]." Any site that allows users to submit content is predictably enabling a violation of copyright law. This is how the copyright cartel already views things — it seems unlikely that they would become more conservative if SOPA passes.
  - thebigshane 15y ago
    After re-reading the Manager's Amendment, I think that quote is no longer applicative. It looks like allowing user generated/submitted content is no longer enough under SOPA. However, it's a good thing that language was removed! So perhaps, this is an example of the benefit of the outrage over this bill. But at what point do we look back and decide that the changes are sufficient and stop the mob?