4 ms·

The grammar is exceedingly thick and difficult to parse, but if you look closely, you'll see: "the U.S.-directed site...enables or facilitates (a violation of

by cheald 15y ago

The grammar is exceedingly thick and difficult to parse, but if you look closely, you'll see: "the U.S.-directed site...enables or facilitates (a violation of USC Title 17, section 501 and section 1201/ title 17; loosely, the copyright infringement code and copyright protection circumvention code)" Basically, what this means is that if the core functionality of your site even enables copyright infringment (by, say, submitting links to infringing content, or posting copyrighted content in comment threads like this one), the site is an infringing site. The language doesn't require that you be dedicated to copyright infringement. All it requires is that your core functionality enable it. HN, by any stretch of the imagination, falls under that category. While you and I look at that and say "Oh, that's obviously not meant to target HN", the law doesn't work that way. The language says "if you have a comment box, you're at risk of being labeled an "Internet site is dedicated to theft of U.S. property". Additionally, you may be labeled "infringing" if you take "deliberate actions to avoid confirming a high probability" of copyright infringement; that is, if you make the deliberate decision that it's not cost-effective to screen every comment posted to your site, then you may be painted as "dedicated to theft". Because I can post "46 DC EA D3 17 FE 45 D8 09 23 EB 97 E4 95 64 10 D4 CD B2 C2" on Hacker News, it can be argued that its core functionality enables violations of US Code Section 1202, Title 17, and therefore, under SOPA, Hacker News would legally be guilty of being a "Internet site is dedicated to theft of U.S. property". The "qualifying plaintiff" portions basically give the copyright holders the right to pull the trigger on most any site on which their content shows up on, even if the site isn't "dedicated" to infringement, just so long as the site's core functionality makes it possible to infringe.

tzs 15y ago
Here's how 103(a)(1)(A)(B)(i) starts: the 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-- That looks like a three way "or" to me. If the three branches were separated, they would come out like this: the U.S.-directed site is primarily designed or operated for the purpose of offering goods or services in a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates-- the U.S.-directed site has only limited purpose or use other than offering goods or services in a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates-- the U.S.-directed site 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-- To fall under that section, a site has to meet the conditions of at least one of those branches. All three of the branches have conditions that would not apply to HN. The first requires that the site be primarily designed or operated for the purpose of enabling or facilitating infringement. That's not the case for HN. The second does not have an intent requirement, but requires that the site has only limited purpose or use aside form infringing. Again, that does not apply to HN. The third requires that HN be marketed as offering goods and services to aid infringement. I don't think it has ever been so marketed. Your point on "deliberate actions to avoid confirming a high probability" of infringement looks interesting. That one may be a problem.
- cheald 15y ago
  I guess the vagueness of the language is why we have lawyers, but the way I read the first "or" clause, HN could be painted as infringing. It is primarily designed to offer services (link posting and comment discussion) that (happen to) enable copyright infringement (see the DVD key I posted above). It's not designed for the explicit purpose of enabling copyright infringement, but it is designed to offer a service that, by its nature, enable and facilitates copyright infringement, if users were to use it for such. To paraphrase: the U.S.-directed site is primarily designed for the purpose of offering services that enable copyright infringement. The way I'd expect a reasonable person to read that clause would be "you're a bad guy if you build a site that is specifically for distributing infringing content". The way I expect a lawyer would read that is "you're a bad guy if you build a site that includes functionality that can be used to distribute infringing content". Intent doesn't seem to be in play; only the fact that you offer a service that enables copyright infringement matters. My understanding of it seems to be the thing that so many people have an issue with; the concern is that SOPA's loose language makes any content platform effectively illegal, giving the media cartels a sledgehammer that they can swing at just about anyone they please.

by cheald 15y ago

tzs 15y ago

Here's how 103(a)(1)(A)(B)(i) starts: the 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-- That looks like a three way "or" to me. If the three branches were separated, they would come out like this: the U.S.-directed site is primarily designed or operated for the purpose of offering goods or services in a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates-- the U.S.-directed site has only limited purpose or use other than offering goods or services in a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates-- the U.S.-directed site 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-- To fall under that section, a site has to meet the conditions of at least one of those branches. All three of the branches have conditions that would not apply to HN. The first requires that the site be primarily designed or operated for the purpose of enabling or facilitating infringement. That's not the case for HN. The second does not have an intent requirement, but requires that the site has only limited purpose or use aside form infringing. Again, that does not apply to HN. The third requires that HN be marketed as offering goods and services to aid infringement. I don't think it has ever been so marketed. Your point on "deliberate actions to avoid confirming a high probability" of infringement looks interesting. That one may be a problem.

cheald 15y ago
I guess the vagueness of the language is why we have lawyers, but the way I read the first "or" clause, HN could be painted as infringing. It is primarily designed to offer services (link posting and comment discussion) that (happen to) enable copyright infringement (see the DVD key I posted above). It's not designed for the explicit purpose of enabling copyright infringement, but it is designed to offer a service that, by its nature, enable and facilitates copyright infringement, if users were to use it for such. To paraphrase: the U.S.-directed site is primarily designed for the purpose of offering services that enable copyright infringement. The way I'd expect a reasonable person to read that clause would be "you're a bad guy if you build a site that is specifically for distributing infringing content". The way I expect a lawyer would read that is "you're a bad guy if you build a site that includes functionality that can be used to distribute infringing content". Intent doesn't seem to be in play; only the fact that you offer a service that enables copyright infringement matters. My understanding of it seems to be the thing that so many people have an issue with; the concern is that SOPA's loose language makes any content platform effectively illegal, giving the media cartels a sledgehammer that they can swing at just about anyone they please.