12 ms·

The author of SOPA is a copyright violator

383 points by seanmalarkey 15y ago

This is too funny...

gerggerg 15y ago
I think what's most interesting about this is it is a great indicator of the public perception of copyright. If even the creator of the harshest pro-greed-based-copyright legislation can't uphold the most modest of copyright provisions, I think that's a clear indicator that copyright is in need of reform in the opposite direction he proposes. He himself can't respect the very laws he champions on his own public facing website.
digitalsushi 15y ago
While it's possible that he authored his own political website, I would strongly suspect this is a proxy blame. I am all for blaming Lamar Smith as much as the next guy. My issue is assigning a state to an individual when another individual performed the state changing action. The furthest it is fair to place that assignment is shared with the entire group. edit, apparently downvoting is the same as disagreeing here too. sigh. guess this teaches me to share my honest thoughts and to continue chasing integers.
- dkokelley 15y ago
  I agree that it's unfair to accuse Congressman Smith of directly and maliciously using pirated content. However, the irony of the matter is that under his own proposed bill, the congressman's site would be blacklisted regardless. One reason SOPA is such a bad idea is because it does precisely what you take issue with by assigning the label 'copyright infringer' to the congressman without any due process.
  - bad_user 15y ago
    Exactly, that this law is even discussed and brought to public attention is unthinkable. With this law the accuser becomes the judge and the executioner. It's like the police shooting first, asking questions later. It's like silencing political opposition in the name of progress. It's like detaining prisoners indefinitely without trial ... oh wait!
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- mikehuffman 15y ago
  My issue with SOPA, etc. is the whole "Punish you first, possibly irreparably, then find out if you're guilty later" aspect of it that carries no consequences if it is abused as such.
- Vivtek 15y ago
  The entire point of SOPA is to enshrine proxy blame as law, friend.
- justjimmy 15y ago
  And that is one of the core reason why SOPA is a flawed concept.
- ggchappell 15y ago
  > edit, apparently downvoting is the same as disagreeing here too. sigh. guess this teaches me to share my honest thoughts and to continue chasing integers. Sad, isn't it? Some people even seem to think that up/down votes are primarily for rating opinions. Pretty awful idea, if you ask me. I think HN very much needs some kind of discussion on this, and preferably an official policy discouraging it. Still, it's worth pointing out (from the Guidelines): > Resist complaining about being downmodded. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.
  - toyg 15y ago
    I think he was downmodded because of his spectacular failure to understand that the process of blaming A for the acts of B is exactly the point of SOPA... so complaining that we shouldn't apply to Smith the same process that Smith wants to apply to everyone else looks very short-sighted at best (and at worst, just partisan).
    - jleader 15y ago
      Actually, in this case, we're blaming A for the acts of B, in B's role as an employee or contractor working on behalf and at the direction of A. In the case of SOPA, when a large user-generated content site is blocked because of one piece of copyrighted content, then individuals A through ZZZZZ are being punished for the acts of a completely unrelated B who just happened to use the same free service they did.
dkokelley 15y ago
This really goes to show just how easy it would be to be accused and shutdown as a copyright violator. In this case it was probably an issue of the web designer recklessly searching for a Texas-y background and Congressman Smith unknowingly using the copyrighted image. Sure, it's irresponsible, but it's an understandable mistake to make. Enter sites with untold volumes of user-submitted content. To begin, it's unlikely that the site owner will be able to police the content due to the sheer scale of it. But what's worse is that if content (like this copyrighted image) is found on the site, there is no immediately clear way to know if its use and publication is licensed or not. (I know this is basically a rehash of our old arguments.)
- bad_user 15y ago
  Considering that the owner is a US Congressman with extensive knowledge of copyright law (or so I assume) - he should have been paying attention to what happens on his freaking website, which is nothing more than his business card to the whole world. Failing to do so, talking about scale doesn't make much sense, since if a US Congressman, that happens to be the author of SOPA, can't handle it - what chances are there for any website to be on the lookout for violations?
  - alexqgb 15y ago
    Actually, this stuff is absolutely impossible to police completely. Major content producers (networks, studios, etc.) know this in their bones, and carry what's known as E&O - Errors & Omissions insurance - for this exact reason. Given the complexity of copyright law, the vagaries of content "creation", and the pressure of constant deadlines, these really are errors and omissions. And given the nature of a business that relies heavily on freelance creatives, the risk of an entirely honest missed-licence or a misattributed credit is so pervasive that distributers (who are the first people to get sued) won't accept material from producers who don't have E&O, and who can't indemnify their distribution partners. At the same time, underwriters won't issue E&O policies to producers who make too many "mistakes". All this puts pressure on producers to make serious efforts to respect the law as mush as humanly possible, while acknowledging that perfect compliance isn't realistic. So pro-SOPA people aren't going to look a this and think "Gosh, maybe we're wrong". They're going to think "This happens all the time, and it's why we carry insurance." Combining copyright law with the mechanisms to ensure that copyright industries follow their own rules has one effect: it drives up the risk and complexity - and thus, the cost - of producing commercial content. For established producers this is actually seen as a good thing, as it provides them with a barrier to entry, not to mention another line-item they can pass on (with mark-up!) to whoever is hiring them. Indeed, that's the whole point. In their view, if you don't have the money and organization to sustain the lawyers and insurance policies "needed" to produce content then you should just focus on buying popcorn. When it comes to actually making media you should "leave it to the professionals". By the way, that popcorn costs twenty bucks. After all, we've got lawyers to pay.
sutro 15y ago
Is there any provision under SOPA with which we can somehow blacklist Lamar Smith's toupée?
- DrMcFacekick 15y ago
  runs off to write her Representative
botj 15y ago
Great sleuthing. Now how do we get the bigger outlets to run with the story? This could cause some PR damage for the SOPA supporters.
gldalmaso 15y ago
If someone manages to lookup the guys ip, then please do check out on http://www.youhavedownloaded.com/ http://www.youhavedownloaded.com/
spodek 15y ago
Which is worse: someone supporting SOPA because they know nothing about copyright or someone supporting SOPA because they know a lot about copyright?
g-garron 15y ago
Nobody is free of sin. So, it is dangerous to permit an act like that.
kenrik 15y ago
It's really easy to understand how something like this could happen. I'm sure it was a mistake by the web designer and not intentional however under SOPA he would be facing the same repercussions that everyone is worried about even though it was a mistake. Prime example of why SOPA is so god awful. When I was a teenager I participated in a program offered through 4H (4-h.org) every year where we would visit out State Capital and hold a mock legislative lesson over the corse of a week. Depending on what portion you had signed up for you might play the part of a Lobbyist, Legislator, Senator, Whip or even the Speaker of the House. We would have the actual representatives and lobbyists there to give presentations and offer advice while we argued bills on the floor and made our back room dealings that would decide what bills would be killed or passed (Our advisers were not very happy when one year we legalized prostitution! LOL). You could think of it as sort of a YCombinator of politics. Once you understand exactly how the system works you realize why it seems that so many of our representatives seem to be absolutely clueless as to what the bills they are proposing actually do or what implications they may have. The general gist is this: Lobbyist: This is what I'm proposing <Insert> overly simplified explanation of the proposed legislation similar to how you would explain the inner-workings/programming of a software to your grandmother </Insert> Lobbyist: We have a draft of the bill ready it's important to your constituents because <Insert> Three Points: from overly simplified explanation</Insert> do I have your support on this issue? Representative: Sure send the draft to my office and I'll look it over (70% never actually will) Rince and repeat for each representative until it has enough support to make it through committee and to the floor. Result: 70% of the representatives only have a paragraph explanation of what they are voting on. The other 30% are the ones who actually understand the bill and will either fight for or against it. Bill passes even if it's BAD, BAD, BAD for the State or in the case of Washington, The Country.
Permit 15y ago
In my opinion, when Alexis Ohanian goes before Congress, this should be something that is brought up. Just yesterday (http://hackerne.ws/item?id=3451934 http://hackerne.ws/item?id=3451934) we saw how Congress doesn't understand why this law would be so difficult to enforce and how broad it really is. It's something that they can actually relate to, as I imagine they all have websites of their own and having them block within the United States would be catastrophic for their future election plans.
- billswift 15y ago
  They'll just do the same thing they did with insider trading and other laws, they'll exempt themselves.

383 points by seanmalarkey 15y ago

This is too funny...

I think what's most interesting about this is it is a great indicator of the public perception of copyright. If even the creator of the harshest pro-greed-based-copyright legislation can't uphold the most modest of copyright provisions, I think that's a clear indicator that copyright is in need of reform in the opposite direction he proposes. He himself can't respect the very laws he champions on his own public facing website.

digitalsushi 15y ago

While it's possible that he authored his own political website, I would strongly suspect this is a proxy blame. I am all for blaming Lamar Smith as much as the next guy. My issue is assigning a state to an individual when another individual performed the state changing action. The furthest it is fair to place that assignment is shared with the entire group. edit, apparently downvoting is the same as disagreeing here too. sigh. guess this teaches me to share my honest thoughts and to continue chasing integers.

dkokelley 15y ago
I agree that it's unfair to accuse Congressman Smith of directly and maliciously using pirated content. However, the irony of the matter is that under his own proposed bill, the congressman's site would be blacklisted regardless. One reason SOPA is such a bad idea is because it does precisely what you take issue with by assigning the label 'copyright infringer' to the congressman without any due process.
- bad_user 15y ago
  Exactly, that this law is even discussed and brought to public attention is unthinkable. With this law the accuser becomes the judge and the executioner. It's like the police shooting first, asking questions later. It's like silencing political opposition in the name of progress. It's like detaining prisoners indefinitely without trial ... oh wait!
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
mikehuffman 15y ago
My issue with SOPA, etc. is the whole "Punish you first, possibly irreparably, then find out if you're guilty later" aspect of it that carries no consequences if it is abused as such.
Vivtek 15y ago
The entire point of SOPA is to enshrine proxy blame as law, friend.
justjimmy 15y ago
And that is one of the core reason why SOPA is a flawed concept.
ggchappell 15y ago
> edit, apparently downvoting is the same as disagreeing here too. sigh. guess this teaches me to share my honest thoughts and to continue chasing integers. Sad, isn't it? Some people even seem to think that up/down votes are primarily for rating opinions. Pretty awful idea, if you ask me. I think HN very much needs some kind of discussion on this, and preferably an official policy discouraging it. Still, it's worth pointing out (from the Guidelines): > Resist complaining about being downmodded. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.
- toyg 15y ago
  I think he was downmodded because of his spectacular failure to understand that the process of blaming A for the acts of B is exactly the point of SOPA... so complaining that we shouldn't apply to Smith the same process that Smith wants to apply to everyone else looks very short-sighted at best (and at worst, just partisan).
  - jleader 15y ago
    Actually, in this case, we're blaming A for the acts of B, in B's role as an employee or contractor working on behalf and at the direction of A. In the case of SOPA, when a large user-generated content site is blocked because of one piece of copyrighted content, then individuals A through ZZZZZ are being punished for the acts of a completely unrelated B who just happened to use the same free service they did.

dkokelley 15y ago

This really goes to show just how easy it would be to be accused and shutdown as a copyright violator. In this case it was probably an issue of the web designer recklessly searching for a Texas-y background and Congressman Smith unknowingly using the copyrighted image. Sure, it's irresponsible, but it's an understandable mistake to make. Enter sites with untold volumes of user-submitted content. To begin, it's unlikely that the site owner will be able to police the content due to the sheer scale of it. But what's worse is that if content (like this copyrighted image) is found on the site, there is no immediately clear way to know if its use and publication is licensed or not. (I know this is basically a rehash of our old arguments.)

bad_user 15y ago
Considering that the owner is a US Congressman with extensive knowledge of copyright law (or so I assume) - he should have been paying attention to what happens on his freaking website, which is nothing more than his business card to the whole world. Failing to do so, talking about scale doesn't make much sense, since if a US Congressman, that happens to be the author of SOPA, can't handle it - what chances are there for any website to be on the lookout for violations?
- alexqgb 15y ago
  Actually, this stuff is absolutely impossible to police completely. Major content producers (networks, studios, etc.) know this in their bones, and carry what's known as E&O - Errors & Omissions insurance - for this exact reason. Given the complexity of copyright law, the vagaries of content "creation", and the pressure of constant deadlines, these really are errors and omissions. And given the nature of a business that relies heavily on freelance creatives, the risk of an entirely honest missed-licence or a misattributed credit is so pervasive that distributers (who are the first people to get sued) won't accept material from producers who don't have E&O, and who can't indemnify their distribution partners. At the same time, underwriters won't issue E&O policies to producers who make too many "mistakes". All this puts pressure on producers to make serious efforts to respect the law as mush as humanly possible, while acknowledging that perfect compliance isn't realistic. So pro-SOPA people aren't going to look a this and think "Gosh, maybe we're wrong". They're going to think "This happens all the time, and it's why we carry insurance." Combining copyright law with the mechanisms to ensure that copyright industries follow their own rules has one effect: it drives up the risk and complexity - and thus, the cost - of producing commercial content. For established producers this is actually seen as a good thing, as it provides them with a barrier to entry, not to mention another line-item they can pass on (with mark-up!) to whoever is hiring them. Indeed, that's the whole point. In their view, if you don't have the money and organization to sustain the lawyers and insurance policies "needed" to produce content then you should just focus on buying popcorn. When it comes to actually making media you should "leave it to the professionals". By the way, that popcorn costs twenty bucks. After all, we've got lawyers to pay.

sutro 15y ago

Is there any provision under SOPA with which we can somehow blacklist Lamar Smith's toupée?

DrMcFacekick 15y ago
runs off to write her Representative

botj 15y ago

Great sleuthing. Now how do we get the bigger outlets to run with the story? This could cause some PR damage for the SOPA supporters.

gldalmaso 15y ago

If someone manages to lookup the guys ip, then please do check out on http://www.youhavedownloaded.com/ http://www.youhavedownloaded.com/

spodek 15y ago

Which is worse: someone supporting SOPA because they know nothing about copyright or someone supporting SOPA because they know a lot about copyright?

g-garron 15y ago

Nobody is free of sin. So, it is dangerous to permit an act like that.

kenrik 15y ago

It's really easy to understand how something like this could happen. I'm sure it was a mistake by the web designer and not intentional however under SOPA he would be facing the same repercussions that everyone is worried about even though it was a mistake. Prime example of why SOPA is so god awful. When I was a teenager I participated in a program offered through 4H (4-h.org) every year where we would visit out State Capital and hold a mock legislative lesson over the corse of a week. Depending on what portion you had signed up for you might play the part of a Lobbyist, Legislator, Senator, Whip or even the Speaker of the House. We would have the actual representatives and lobbyists there to give presentations and offer advice while we argued bills on the floor and made our back room dealings that would decide what bills would be killed or passed (Our advisers were not very happy when one year we legalized prostitution! LOL). You could think of it as sort of a YCombinator of politics. Once you understand exactly how the system works you realize why it seems that so many of our representatives seem to be absolutely clueless as to what the bills they are proposing actually do or what implications they may have. The general gist is this: Lobbyist: This is what I'm proposing <Insert> overly simplified explanation of the proposed legislation similar to how you would explain the inner-workings/programming of a software to your grandmother </Insert> Lobbyist: We have a draft of the bill ready it's important to your constituents because <Insert> Three Points: from overly simplified explanation</Insert> do I have your support on this issue? Representative: Sure send the draft to my office and I'll look it over (70% never actually will) Rince and repeat for each representative until it has enough support to make it through committee and to the floor. Result: 70% of the representatives only have a paragraph explanation of what they are voting on. The other 30% are the ones who actually understand the bill and will either fight for or against it. Bill passes even if it's BAD, BAD, BAD for the State or in the case of Washington, The Country.

Permit 15y ago

In my opinion, when Alexis Ohanian goes before Congress, this should be something that is brought up. Just yesterday (http://hackerne.ws/item?id=3451934 http://hackerne.ws/item?id=3451934) we saw how Congress doesn't understand why this law would be so difficult to enforce and how broad it really is. It's something that they can actually relate to, as I imagine they all have websites of their own and having them block within the United States would be catastrophic for their future election plans.

billswift 15y ago
They'll just do the same thing they did with insider trading and other laws, they'll exempt themselves.