5 ms·

The rebuttal is this: The bill defines "foreign infringing sites" as those infringing sites that have their domains registered outside the US, are "US-directed

The rebuttal is this: The bill defines "foreign infringing sites" as those infringing sites that have their domains registered outside the US, are "US-directed" and "used by users in the United States." This would include, for example, all the sites that use Libya's top-level domain, like bit.ly, but would not include a site like thepiratebay.org, as the US controls the .org top-level domain. You can check that this is true by reading Sec. 101.3-8 and Sec. 102.1.a. (13 lines of text in total) on the Library of Congress website here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.3261: This doesn't address whether a site is "infringing" or not, but it makes it clear that sites that most people would consider US websites, like bit.ly, can certainly be affected by the bill. Cotton's argument that only foreign sites will be affected is bogus, when you look at the details of what "foreign" means.

swanson 15y ago
You link isn't working for me - but I will take your word. That is an interesting point and seems simple enough for most people to understand, I wonder why it wasn't brought up. Do you know any details about the "wholesale piracy" portion of the claim? Is it just a matter of setting a dangerous precedent (who defines "wholesale", etc) or is there a more concrete counterpoint in the bill?
- pingswept 15y ago
  Ah, it appears that the HN link parser clips the colon off the end of the URL in my previous post. I fixed the formatting, but the link is no longer clickable. Should be copy/pasteable. About the "wholesale piracy" bit: that's also wrong. The bill would apply to an "an Internet site, or a portion thereof" ... "primarily designed or operated for the purpose of" piracy. (Sec 103.a.1.A-B) Links on bit.ly (for example) that pointed to illegal downloads would fall into that category. The phrase "portion of" is not compatible with Cotton's "wholesale" description. For me, the worst part is that the bill targets sites "facilitating the commission of criminal violations," (Sec 102.a.2) related to copyright law, rather than actually committing the criminal violations. If this were in the realm of guns rather than copyright, it would make every gun magazine publisher a criminal. In general, speech about crime is different than crime itself, especially when the activity at hand can be criminal or noncriminal in different circumstances.
  - tszyn 15y ago
    I agree the "or portion thereof" part is unclear and could be interpreted as enabling courts to DNS-block a domain on which any amount of infringement is going on. For example ISPs will be required to "prevent the domain name of the foreign infringing site (or portion thereof) from resolving". What the hell does "domain name of a portion of a site" mean? Regarding the "facilitating" part, notice it is just one of three items in a definition. ALL of these items have to be satisfied. Let's not spread FUD here.
    - pingswept 15y ago
      > Regarding the "facilitating" part, notice it is just one of three items in a definition. ALL of these items have to be satisfied Yes, you are correct. I didn't mean to suggest otherwise.
graywh 15y ago
The public needs to hear that X% of these "foreign" websites are based in the US.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
balloot 15y ago
That still doesn't explain why Google is opposed to the bill. I think there's a better explanation that is linked to the enforcement of situations such as "someone googles Pirate Bay and gets a link to the site". SOPA puts Google at fault for this, and I assume the enforcement mechanism could very much harm a US company (Google). Unfortunately, time ran out on the segment right as they were getting to this point.
- jcrites 15y ago
  I think Google and other web companies are opposed because it will create potentially significant administration burden for them. That is probably not the only reason, but I suspect it is sufficient reason for most opposition.
  - thebigshane 15y ago
    The bill does apparently say that it does not force US based sites, ISPs, Name servers to change their current operations. NO TECHNOLOGY MANDATES.—Nothing in title I shall be construed to impose a duty on an en- tity described in section 102(c) or 103(c) to design its network, technology, or service to forestall or pre- vent acts that would actually or potentially create a cause of action under such title, or to utilize any particular type of technology to comply with the re- quirements of such title. Perhaps someone else can shine some light in how Google could still be victim to increased administrative burden.
    - adgar 15y ago
      When I read that paragraph as a layman, I read two points: 1. A US entity does not have to redesign anything to slow or prevent infringing search results/credit card payments/etc in order to avoid liability 2. No particular type of technology must be utilized to comply: they're explicitly saying they won't require firms to "use PiracyBlocker2001 on your network" or "filter search results with the ProtectLouisVuittonsProfitMargin algorithm" or something to that effect.
- swanson 15y ago
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

swanson 15y ago

You link isn't working for me - but I will take your word. That is an interesting point and seems simple enough for most people to understand, I wonder why it wasn't brought up. Do you know any details about the "wholesale piracy" portion of the claim? Is it just a matter of setting a dangerous precedent (who defines "wholesale", etc) or is there a more concrete counterpoint in the bill?

pingswept 15y ago
Ah, it appears that the HN link parser clips the colon off the end of the URL in my previous post. I fixed the formatting, but the link is no longer clickable. Should be copy/pasteable. About the "wholesale piracy" bit: that's also wrong. The bill would apply to an "an Internet site, or a portion thereof" ... "primarily designed or operated for the purpose of" piracy. (Sec 103.a.1.A-B) Links on bit.ly (for example) that pointed to illegal downloads would fall into that category. The phrase "portion of" is not compatible with Cotton's "wholesale" description. For me, the worst part is that the bill targets sites "facilitating the commission of criminal violations," (Sec 102.a.2) related to copyright law, rather than actually committing the criminal violations. If this were in the realm of guns rather than copyright, it would make every gun magazine publisher a criminal. In general, speech about crime is different than crime itself, especially when the activity at hand can be criminal or noncriminal in different circumstances.
- tszyn 15y ago
  I agree the "or portion thereof" part is unclear and could be interpreted as enabling courts to DNS-block a domain on which any amount of infringement is going on. For example ISPs will be required to "prevent the domain name of the foreign infringing site (or portion thereof) from resolving". What the hell does "domain name of a portion of a site" mean? Regarding the "facilitating" part, notice it is just one of three items in a definition. ALL of these items have to be satisfied. Let's not spread FUD here.
  - pingswept 15y ago
    > Regarding the "facilitating" part, notice it is just one of three items in a definition. ALL of these items have to be satisfied Yes, you are correct. I didn't mean to suggest otherwise.

graywh 15y ago

The public needs to hear that X% of these "foreign" websites are based in the US.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

balloot 15y ago

That still doesn't explain why Google is opposed to the bill. I think there's a better explanation that is linked to the enforcement of situations such as "someone googles Pirate Bay and gets a link to the site". SOPA puts Google at fault for this, and I assume the enforcement mechanism could very much harm a US company (Google). Unfortunately, time ran out on the segment right as they were getting to this point.

jcrites 15y ago
I think Google and other web companies are opposed because it will create potentially significant administration burden for them. That is probably not the only reason, but I suspect it is sufficient reason for most opposition.
- thebigshane 15y ago
  The bill does apparently say that it does not force US based sites, ISPs, Name servers to change their current operations. NO TECHNOLOGY MANDATES.—Nothing in title I shall be construed to impose a duty on an en- tity described in section 102(c) or 103(c) to design its network, technology, or service to forestall or pre- vent acts that would actually or potentially create a cause of action under such title, or to utilize any particular type of technology to comply with the re- quirements of such title. Perhaps someone else can shine some light in how Google could still be victim to increased administrative burden.
  - adgar 15y ago
    When I read that paragraph as a layman, I read two points: 1. A US entity does not have to redesign anything to slow or prevent infringing search results/credit card payments/etc in order to avoid liability 2. No particular type of technology must be utilized to comply: they're explicitly saying they won't require firms to "use PiracyBlocker2001 on your network" or "filter search results with the ProtectLouisVuittonsProfitMargin algorithm" or something to that effect.
swanson 15y ago

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]