4 ms·

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,

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?
    - chc 15y ago
      Decide the changes are sufficient? That seems to assume there's some basic core of SOPA that we agree is good. I'm not sure a lot of people really believe SOPA has a good core. There might be good intentions behind it from some parties, but it seems like if you get rid of all the harmful parts, you still aren't left with anything good. You need to establish that the bill is necessary and beneficial, not just that it isn't completely radioactively harmful. Also, even if SOPA is defeated or rendered toothless, the AAs will just keep trying to ram their insane demands through Congress. Our representatives need to really understand that the cartel lobbyists don't represent the will of the people, and we won't accomplish that by shrugging and saying, "Eh, good enough."
      - thebigshane 15y ago
        I think most people believe that their intentions of stopping the real rogue sites (like those russian sites that sell mp3s for 10 cents each and stopping sites that peddle counterfeit, and sometimes dangerous goods) are good. Personally, I'm not sure what to believe; I think some probably have good intentions but I don't trust the MPAA/RIAA at all and there's enough money moving around to be very skeptical of the rest. I think the parts of the bill that target the "counterfeit goods" sites are probably necessary, but as `dissident` points out, its possible that the consequences to DNS and CDNs outweigh the benefits (but Im not convinced yet :) Regarding your second point, that is what I was getting at earlier in this thread: that as long as we rely on DNS, there will always be an opportunity for censorship. The tech-savvy need to start looking into `namecoin` and other DNS alternatives if we want to guarantee freedom.
- nitrogen 15y ago
  ...is marketed by...another acting in concert with that operator... Without a contrary definition of "in concert," I could see that as covering any site with an affiliate program. For example, Amazon provides automated revenue sharing for inbound affiliate links. Let's say some third-party affiliate site markets Amazon as an ideal venue for "engag[ing] in, enabl[ing], or facilitat[ing], violation of [...some existing laws...]". Under the wording of what you just posted, Amazon would now be subject to DNS blacklisting and termination of payment processing. "They'd never shut down Amazon," you say? Well, so what? They would shut down some smaller Amazon-like site. History has shown that the RIAA and MPAA (and/or their members) will do whatever they can get away with, and sometimes more (see Megaupload+Universal). AIUI, SOPA gives legal force to mere accusations coming from a major copyright holder.

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?
  - chc 15y ago
    Decide the changes are sufficient? That seems to assume there's some basic core of SOPA that we agree is good. I'm not sure a lot of people really believe SOPA has a good core. There might be good intentions behind it from some parties, but it seems like if you get rid of all the harmful parts, you still aren't left with anything good. You need to establish that the bill is necessary and beneficial, not just that it isn't completely radioactively harmful. Also, even if SOPA is defeated or rendered toothless, the AAs will just keep trying to ram their insane demands through Congress. Our representatives need to really understand that the cartel lobbyists don't represent the will of the people, and we won't accomplish that by shrugging and saying, "Eh, good enough."
    - thebigshane 15y ago
      I think most people believe that their intentions of stopping the real rogue sites (like those russian sites that sell mp3s for 10 cents each and stopping sites that peddle counterfeit, and sometimes dangerous goods) are good. Personally, I'm not sure what to believe; I think some probably have good intentions but I don't trust the MPAA/RIAA at all and there's enough money moving around to be very skeptical of the rest. I think the parts of the bill that target the "counterfeit goods" sites are probably necessary, but as `dissident` points out, its possible that the consequences to DNS and CDNs outweigh the benefits (but Im not convinced yet :) Regarding your second point, that is what I was getting at earlier in this thread: that as long as we rely on DNS, there will always be an opportunity for censorship. The tech-savvy need to start looking into `namecoin` and other DNS alternatives if we want to guarantee freedom.
nitrogen 15y ago
...is marketed by...another acting in concert with that operator... Without a contrary definition of "in concert," I could see that as covering any site with an affiliate program. For example, Amazon provides automated revenue sharing for inbound affiliate links. Let's say some third-party affiliate site markets Amazon as an ideal venue for "engag[ing] in, enabl[ing], or facilitat[ing], violation of [...some existing laws...]". Under the wording of what you just posted, Amazon would now be subject to DNS blacklisting and termination of payment processing. "They'd never shut down Amazon," you say? Well, so what? They would shut down some smaller Amazon-like site. History has shown that the RIAA and MPAA (and/or their members) will do whatever they can get away with, and sometimes more (see Megaupload+Universal). AIUI, SOPA gives legal force to mere accusations coming from a major copyright holder.