9 ms·

SOPA 'shelved' until consensus is found

389 points by Geep 15y ago

dangrossman 15y ago
They're certainly trying to get in front of this story before the 18th. I hope none of the sites planning to protest drop those plans. Politicians and lobbyists know well that the public has a short attention span -- a few weeks of quiet and most of the discussion will have died down. When's the last time you read about protesting the full body scanners and patdowns of children at airports? Even if these bills are shelved now, they'll be back later this year.
- ars 15y ago
  It'll be a tough call for those sites. "Internet sites go dark for a bill that was canceled 2 days ago." Sites planning a blackout better reframe quickly and make the blackout about internet censorship (in general) instead of SOPA in particular. IMO they put in too long of a lead time from announcement to implementation. Google has not said anything, and now will not have to backtrack, but other sites will.
  - toyg 15y ago
    Easy! :s/SOPA/PIPA/g PIPA, the sister bill coming through Senate, is still there and needs to be squashed as well.
    - ars 15y ago
      Once it's been canceled in either branch it's dead. They both need to pass it for it to become law so PIPA doesn't matter anymore except maybe symbolically.
      - toyg 15y ago
        Technically a bill originating in any branch can be approved and then sent to the other branch for debate, amendment and approval, followed by reconciliation if it now differs from the version originally approved. I don't see why you couldn't have a situation where PIPA supporters lay low for a news cycle or two, then get PIPA approved and sent to the House when nobody is watching. PIPA is even more generically-worded than SOPA, so it will be more difficult to fight it on the basis that "it will break the internet". There is clearly a lot of money riding on this bill, and it's election year.
- ErrantX 15y ago
  The risk there is that the media just ignores it (or worse, casts the internet as "failing to understand Congress, because it is shelved", or something like that). Which leaves the big protest flopped - and after the election fracas no one will remember it. I think this was a very smart move by the bill proponents. And, unfortunately, a protest now risks playing into their hands.
- sp332 15y ago
  There's so much crappy IP legislation right now, we could easily switch to, say the Research Works Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_Works_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_Works_Act which would put some taxpayer-funded research results behind paywalls. [edit] It's effectively double-dipping, getting paid once to do the research and then again if you want to actually read the results.
  - impendia 15y ago
    Wrong, we researchers are not double-dipping, just because the publishers are charging exorbitant sums doesn't mean we see a dime of it.
math_is_life 15y ago
Did they really have any choice? After the statement from the White House, they had to put it on hold because they do not want it to be vetoed. They will still come back, but they will either wait until they can make the President happy (which might be hard if he is in his second year and does not have to run again) or wait to see if Mitt Romney wins. I just hope that PIPA is put on hold as well and hopefully after the election things will be better (depending on what types are voted in) and not worse.
Maxious 15y ago
Excerpts from Rupert Murdoch's reaction https://twitter.com/Rupertmurdoch https://twitter.com/Rupertmurdoch "So Obama has thrown in his lot withSilicon Valley paymasters who threaten all software creators with piracy, plain thievery." "Piracy leader is Google who streams movies free, sells advts around them. No wonder pouring millions into lobbying." "Sure misunderstand many things, but not plain stealing. Incidentally google blocks many other undesirable things." "Seems like universal anger with [POTUS] from all sorts of normal supporters. Maybe backing pirates a rare miscalculation by friend Axelrod."
- snprbob86 15y ago
  "Incidentally google blocks many other undesirable things." That statement really pisses me off. It also really pissed me off when some politician was like "Google has the technology". Presumably both were referring to SafeSearch and related technologies. These people have no idea what they are talking about. Blocking porn is an entirely different problem than blocking copyright infringement. Identifying an image as nudity is a task that software can do effectively and that can be crowd sourced in a straight forward manner. Anyone could, without consulting any external source, classify pornography. However, the same is not true for infringement. The same companies who want their content off of YouTube are publishing free content on YouTube. Google has bent over backwards to block as much infringement as they can and to provide copyright holders the tools they need to manage their intellectual property rights. But the fact remains: you must consult an external source to classify infringing video. Furthermore, fair use is has complex and subtle requirements which are impractical to police using software, crowd sourcing, or enforcement staff.
  - jwingy 15y ago
    Well you would hope most people would take whatever Rupert Murdoch says with a grain of salt considering the sort of publications his company runs. A man like him doesn't care about the truth.
  - mcherm 15y ago
    As I would say if I got 5 min to testify before a congressional committee: "Gentlemen, it has been suggested that, since Google and others have built technology to detect and block pornographically explicit pictures and videos, that they could build technology to block copyrighted pictures. This is simply not true. Please bear with me and I can demonstrate this. [show two pictures] Can you tell which of these is pornography? It's like Justice Stewart said: 'I know it when I see it'. [show two identical pictures] Can you tell which of these is a copyright violation. [pause] You don't have to peer TOO closely, they are absolutely identical. But the author signed contract allowing me to duplicate and display copies of the one on the left, and did NOT allow me to duplicate and display copies of the one on the right. Determining whether something is a violation of copyright requires one to know details how a court would evaluate fair use exceptions, as well as knowing the details of contracts between two third-parties you may not even know. This is not difficult, it is impossible."
danieldk 15y ago
Isn't this the point where 'the people' should not sit on their laurels, and launch a proposal to make a law that does exactly the opposite: protecting the digital rights of citizens? I am asking because (also in the EU) we are usually happy when some draconian law does not make it, but there's rarely an attempt to push for legislation that secures the rights of internet users.
- jrmg 15y ago
  What would your proposed law say? Congress can't make a law that says that it can't make a SOPA-like law in the future (or, at least, it would be meaningless, since future legislation could repeal it).
  - muuh-gnu 15y ago
    There should be a way for the people to veto a law in a referendum, like in Switzerland. That way politicians would be more cautious passing laws which they know that the public probably won't like and probably will veto. The current US system only provides "checks and balances" between political parties, so when one party cracks up (meaning, gets bought by special interests and turns against the people) we only can pray that the other party will come to the rescue. But when both parties agree and team up against the people, i.e. when there is a political market failure like in the case of SOPA (or ACTA), theres no way for the voters to defend themselves. It is not another law that is needed, but a general possibility to override unpopular laws.
    - rbanffy 15y ago
      > a general possibility to override unpopular laws. We have to be very careful with this. Sometimes a very popular law is exactly what you don't want. There are vast areas where a law mandating the teaching of creationist superstition in science classes would be immensely popular while a law forbidding it would be very unpopular.
      - jules 15y ago
daimyoyo 15y ago
Good. This is an important victory but the people behind SOPA won't go away so easily. I've always viewed SOPA as more of a litmus test to gauge where Americans stood on copyright enforcement. The next bill the industry tries to get passed(and there will be another) will likely be much more subtle than SOPA was. So let's celebrate, but we must remain diligent. This was only the first round.
- kamjam 15y ago
  You may have to fight a battle more than once to win it. - Margaret Thatcher
waterlesscloud 15y ago
I like the idea that there should be an active push to reduce the term of copyright. There's certainly a case to be made that it's unreasonably long, and that the length does not benefit the public. Take the fight to their turf or always be fighting a defensive war.
toyg 15y ago
I applaud the US political system for being better than the UK counterpart in this instance. The copyright mafia tried the exact same trick in the UK two years ago: a bill was pushed through Parliament on election year, when MPs had to make their funding rounds and so were more amenable to being bribed... and it passed. Nice to see US representatives still have a bit more decency (either that, or Google's chequebook is now much lighter than it was three month ago).
Newgy 15y ago
This is just a leadership commitment in the Republican House, the U.S. Senate (controlled by Democrats, and where overall support for SOPA/PIPA seems stronger) could still take up the bill. There are ways to pass legislation that circumvent a direct House vote. It is good news, but I'd wait to see what Senators say this week.
maeon3 15y ago
We need right to connectivity to internet right up there with the right to vibrate your vocal chords in public and use your ears to detect vibrations in air. To take away a human's access to these basic things because they are criminals is unacceptable.
RenierZA 15y ago
So they're battling online privacy? Say no to privacy! (or maybe yes to proof reading)
DanielBMarkham 15y ago
I would urge extreme caution about reading too much into this article. I (I'm a political junkie) saw Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) on TV yesterday. The message I got from his body language, nuance, and phrasing was something like "Obviously people who are elected from heavy technology areas are feeling a lot of heat. There's still a lot of support, though. Let's see if we can tweak this in such a way as to pass some kind of compromise." Maybe that's just Reid trying to keep the RIAA cash cow alive, not sure. But I was fairly certain that what I was hearing was a tactical retreat, not a strategic surrender. Not by any means. My money says next time they'll have some language in there that could be interpreted a bunch of different ways (to prevent informed debate), and they'll wait until the last minute and sneak it into some other bill that is a "must-pass."
- dhimes 15y ago
  I think you hit the nail squarely on the head, Mr. Markham. I too sense this is not going away soon. I don't even trust my own reps in the long term, and they are supposedly opposing. I think this issue will be to the RIAA what abortion is to fundamentalist Christians: they intend to fight this fight until they win it.
- mattwdelong 15y ago
  What scares me most is the fact that everyone knows this tactic. Write an absurd policy, debate it, offer an alternative and jam it down citizens throats. We know this, yet there is not much that can be done about it. Aside from the obvious, running for Senate and using your vote, what can be done to stop it? Someone with the right amount of money and enough motivation can pass just about anything, given enough time. I think, instead of protesting SOPA (or the next bill), people need to devise a method or position themselves so that they're in the right places to protect the average Citizen from such policies. These bills will just keep coming. Screaming from the side line is no longer effective.
  - Retric 15y ago
    The way to stop it is to create and fund long term organizations devoted to stopping it. We have Greenpeace and PITA we need Net Freedom.
alan_cx 15y ago
Heh, first post here. Hi. Although I'm from the UK, I have been following this with keen interest,particularly as US authorities are able to pluck our citizens from our country on mere suspicion. Just to say, and Im sure you all know it already, you have not won, keep pushing and pushing until there is a law, but a fair just one. I don't want such laws, but there are inevitable. Just be sure they are laws that work fairly and properly. I think the thing to do now is for the community to create and propose its own law(s) and push that on the politicians. Present a credible alternative. Get the legislation we want, not what they want. Perhaps some one needs to set up a site where the on line community can collaborate in putting together a workable solution. Any way, congratulations for winning the battle, just remember that we still have the war to win.
- marshray 15y ago
  Welcome to HN! The problem is that US legislation can be changed in lot of weird ways between the time its introduced and when it's passed. For example, there could be popular support for a "Protecting Net Freedoms" act and something good could be introduced. But the special interest lobbyists would likely get a large amount of edits in, and the "provisions" added for "protecting (children|national security|the environment)" and "creating jobs". So at the end of the day, passing a "Protecting Net Freedoms" act would likely be worse than the status quo (which in the US is still quite good IMHO).
  - alan_cx 15y ago
    Sure. I just mostly think that net folk should lead the debate and and offer something positive. Something that the general public can understand and support. That has to be the way forward.
dsplittgerber 15y ago
Awesome, so politians now have two large constituencies to milk: big media and internet-savvy technology companies/the general tech-savvy public. See, the only one profiting from this ordeal irrelevant of how it plays out are politicians. They get to enlarge their power and money base whenever anyone thinks an issue best be regulated by law.
shareme 15y ago
Now they will find a way to tack it on to any budget bill they can to hide it..as this how Congress really passes laws be very wary
bane 15y ago
Convenient this happens right before a bunch of sites go dark in protest.
ctdonath 15y ago
Caution is warranted: "shelved" bills all too often are left there untouched until circumstances warrant slipping them, or a palatable functional equivalent, through unnoticed. It's not dead, it's resting.
- camiller 15y ago
  As they say ... "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty" - Wendell Phillips
- camiller 15y ago
  As they say ... "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty" - Wendell Phillips
mgkimsal 15y ago
While watching the MSNBC video yesterday, Cotton's repeated assertions that this only applied to 'foreign sites' bugged me. From the SOPA text: -------------- (a) Definition- For purposes of this section, a foreign Internet site or portion thereof is a `foreign infringing site' if-- (1) the Internet site or portion thereof is a U.S.-directed site and is used by users in the United States; (2) the owner or operator of such Internet site is committing or facilitating the commission of criminal violations punishable under section 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2319B, or 2320, or chapter 90, of title 18, United States Code; and (3) the Internet site would, by reason of acts described in paragraph (1), be subject to seizure in the United States in an action brought by the Attorney General if such site were a domestic Internet site. -------------- So, a foreign site can be 'u.s.-directed' and used by users in the US. Doesn't sound very 'foreign' to me at all. Sounds an awful lot like 'domestic'. Yes, I'm sure there's legal interpretations of these words that I'm not aware of, but it sure as hell reads to me like when they say "foreign sites" they're not meaning 'foreign' in the sense that anyone in the US would reasonably understand.
- thebigshane 15y ago
  The Manager's Amendment clarifies that language. [http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/HR%203261%20Managers%20Amendment.pdf][PDF] http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/HR%203261%20Managers... Since it is still all legalese, I'll paraphrase (IANAL): a site who's domain name is registered by a registrar outside of US jurisdiction, OR if there is no associated domain name: an IP address of a server outside of US jurisdiction.
gerggerg 15y ago
Ok fellas, we still have some serious work to do. If it's not already painfully apparent, our current batch of representatives are completely ineligible to pass modern legislation. They're not idiots, they're not morons, they just don't have the relevant backgrounds to represent us anymore. The times have changed around them, and their skills and background are no longer effective or relevant enough. We need to work hard to get new representatives on the hill that understand and respect technology. The only way non oppressive legislation even stands a chance is if we have representatives that understand the workings of the internet and don't say things like "let google just hire some 16 year old wiz-kid to fix it". Seriously. It's no longer ok to be a representative and not understand the internet. It is a fundamental part of commerce, free speech, assembly, religion, education, etc. and it's outright dangerous to have people in office who don't understand it attempting to control it. It's up to us to get relevant, modern representatives in office. We just need to work together and do it.
drivingmenuts 15y ago
Now we need a way to get rid of Lamar Smith (R-TX). That SOB is just an idiot waiting to happen. Again.
- marshray 15y ago
  Really the most powerful signal that could come out of this whole debacle is to see just one congressperson lose their seat unambiguously because of their support for net censorship. I say, regardless of whether or not anything passes this year, we find one of the weaker sponsors of SOPA/PIPA who's up for re-election this year and make them pay.
- oacgnol 15y ago
  I can't believe this guy is representing part of Austin, where many web-based companies are located. I have to wonder why he authored the bill.
  - drivingmenuts 15y ago
    Lamar Smith is a grade-A Republican shitheel who just worries about who or what has contributed to his campaign slush fund. It would appear that freedom of speech, to him, is something that should be paid for by the highest bidder. The level of ignorance this man has shown by authoring this bill and the amount of selling out he's done to corporate interests, rather than the people he ostensibly represents, is staggering. Unfortunately, the Texas Legislature has gerrymandered the state so badly that he's dug in like tick and will be difficult to remove.
jellicle 15y ago
It just means the congressmen involved are going to go back and get another hit of money from the copyright industry and then run this through attached to some other bill.
bcjordan 15y ago
> Though the administration's chief technology officials officials acknowledged the problem of online privacy Funny that this Freudian slip has shown up in more than one SOPA article.
darasen 15y ago
Congress will simply throw SOPA in as an amendment to some completely unrelated bill that people will have a hard time saying no to such as such as funding for puppies. Then if somebody opposes they can say "what about the puppies!" Certainly my example is silly yet unrelated amendments are made to bills all the time to push one agenda or another.

389 points by Geep 15y ago

They're certainly trying to get in front of this story before the 18th. I hope none of the sites planning to protest drop those plans. Politicians and lobbyists know well that the public has a short attention span -- a few weeks of quiet and most of the discussion will have died down. When's the last time you read about protesting the full body scanners and patdowns of children at airports? Even if these bills are shelved now, they'll be back later this year.

ars 15y ago
It'll be a tough call for those sites. "Internet sites go dark for a bill that was canceled 2 days ago." Sites planning a blackout better reframe quickly and make the blackout about internet censorship (in general) instead of SOPA in particular. IMO they put in too long of a lead time from announcement to implementation. Google has not said anything, and now will not have to backtrack, but other sites will.
- toyg 15y ago
  Easy! :s/SOPA/PIPA/g PIPA, the sister bill coming through Senate, is still there and needs to be squashed as well.
  - ars 15y ago
    Once it's been canceled in either branch it's dead. They both need to pass it for it to become law so PIPA doesn't matter anymore except maybe symbolically.
    - toyg 15y ago
      Technically a bill originating in any branch can be approved and then sent to the other branch for debate, amendment and approval, followed by reconciliation if it now differs from the version originally approved. I don't see why you couldn't have a situation where PIPA supporters lay low for a news cycle or two, then get PIPA approved and sent to the House when nobody is watching. PIPA is even more generically-worded than SOPA, so it will be more difficult to fight it on the basis that "it will break the internet". There is clearly a lot of money riding on this bill, and it's election year.
ErrantX 15y ago
The risk there is that the media just ignores it (or worse, casts the internet as "failing to understand Congress, because it is shelved", or something like that). Which leaves the big protest flopped - and after the election fracas no one will remember it. I think this was a very smart move by the bill proponents. And, unfortunately, a protest now risks playing into their hands.
sp332 15y ago
There's so much crappy IP legislation right now, we could easily switch to, say the Research Works Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_Works_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_Works_Act which would put some taxpayer-funded research results behind paywalls. [edit] It's effectively double-dipping, getting paid once to do the research and then again if you want to actually read the results.
- impendia 15y ago
  Wrong, we researchers are not double-dipping, just because the publishers are charging exorbitant sums doesn't mean we see a dime of it.

math_is_life 15y ago

Did they really have any choice? After the statement from the White House, they had to put it on hold because they do not want it to be vetoed. They will still come back, but they will either wait until they can make the President happy (which might be hard if he is in his second year and does not have to run again) or wait to see if Mitt Romney wins. I just hope that PIPA is put on hold as well and hopefully after the election things will be better (depending on what types are voted in) and not worse.

Maxious 15y ago

Excerpts from Rupert Murdoch's reaction https://twitter.com/Rupertmurdoch https://twitter.com/Rupertmurdoch "So Obama has thrown in his lot withSilicon Valley paymasters who threaten all software creators with piracy, plain thievery." "Piracy leader is Google who streams movies free, sells advts around them. No wonder pouring millions into lobbying." "Sure misunderstand many things, but not plain stealing. Incidentally google blocks many other undesirable things." "Seems like universal anger with [POTUS] from all sorts of normal supporters. Maybe backing pirates a rare miscalculation by friend Axelrod."

snprbob86 15y ago
"Incidentally google blocks many other undesirable things." That statement really pisses me off. It also really pissed me off when some politician was like "Google has the technology". Presumably both were referring to SafeSearch and related technologies. These people have no idea what they are talking about. Blocking porn is an entirely different problem than blocking copyright infringement. Identifying an image as nudity is a task that software can do effectively and that can be crowd sourced in a straight forward manner. Anyone could, without consulting any external source, classify pornography. However, the same is not true for infringement. The same companies who want their content off of YouTube are publishing free content on YouTube. Google has bent over backwards to block as much infringement as they can and to provide copyright holders the tools they need to manage their intellectual property rights. But the fact remains: you must consult an external source to classify infringing video. Furthermore, fair use is has complex and subtle requirements which are impractical to police using software, crowd sourcing, or enforcement staff.
- jwingy 15y ago
  Well you would hope most people would take whatever Rupert Murdoch says with a grain of salt considering the sort of publications his company runs. A man like him doesn't care about the truth.
- mcherm 15y ago
  As I would say if I got 5 min to testify before a congressional committee: "Gentlemen, it has been suggested that, since Google and others have built technology to detect and block pornographically explicit pictures and videos, that they could build technology to block copyrighted pictures. This is simply not true. Please bear with me and I can demonstrate this. [show two pictures] Can you tell which of these is pornography? It's like Justice Stewart said: 'I know it when I see it'. [show two identical pictures] Can you tell which of these is a copyright violation. [pause] You don't have to peer TOO closely, they are absolutely identical. But the author signed contract allowing me to duplicate and display copies of the one on the left, and did NOT allow me to duplicate and display copies of the one on the right. Determining whether something is a violation of copyright requires one to know details how a court would evaluate fair use exceptions, as well as knowing the details of contracts between two third-parties you may not even know. This is not difficult, it is impossible."

danieldk 15y ago

Isn't this the point where 'the people' should not sit on their laurels, and launch a proposal to make a law that does exactly the opposite: protecting the digital rights of citizens? I am asking because (also in the EU) we are usually happy when some draconian law does not make it, but there's rarely an attempt to push for legislation that secures the rights of internet users.

jrmg 15y ago
What would your proposed law say? Congress can't make a law that says that it can't make a SOPA-like law in the future (or, at least, it would be meaningless, since future legislation could repeal it).
- muuh-gnu 15y ago
  There should be a way for the people to veto a law in a referendum, like in Switzerland. That way politicians would be more cautious passing laws which they know that the public probably won't like and probably will veto. The current US system only provides "checks and balances" between political parties, so when one party cracks up (meaning, gets bought by special interests and turns against the people) we only can pray that the other party will come to the rescue. But when both parties agree and team up against the people, i.e. when there is a political market failure like in the case of SOPA (or ACTA), theres no way for the voters to defend themselves. It is not another law that is needed, but a general possibility to override unpopular laws.
  - rbanffy 15y ago
    > a general possibility to override unpopular laws. We have to be very careful with this. Sometimes a very popular law is exactly what you don't want. There are vast areas where a law mandating the teaching of creationist superstition in science classes would be immensely popular while a law forbidding it would be very unpopular.
    - jules 15y ago

daimyoyo 15y ago

Good. This is an important victory but the people behind SOPA won't go away so easily. I've always viewed SOPA as more of a litmus test to gauge where Americans stood on copyright enforcement. The next bill the industry tries to get passed(and there will be another) will likely be much more subtle than SOPA was. So let's celebrate, but we must remain diligent. This was only the first round.

kamjam 15y ago
You may have to fight a battle more than once to win it. - Margaret Thatcher

waterlesscloud 15y ago

I like the idea that there should be an active push to reduce the term of copyright. There's certainly a case to be made that it's unreasonably long, and that the length does not benefit the public. Take the fight to their turf or always be fighting a defensive war.

toyg 15y ago

I applaud the US political system for being better than the UK counterpart in this instance. The copyright mafia tried the exact same trick in the UK two years ago: a bill was pushed through Parliament on election year, when MPs had to make their funding rounds and so were more amenable to being bribed... and it passed. Nice to see US representatives still have a bit more decency (either that, or Google's chequebook is now much lighter than it was three month ago).

Newgy 15y ago

This is just a leadership commitment in the Republican House, the U.S. Senate (controlled by Democrats, and where overall support for SOPA/PIPA seems stronger) could still take up the bill. There are ways to pass legislation that circumvent a direct House vote. It is good news, but I'd wait to see what Senators say this week.

maeon3 15y ago

We need right to connectivity to internet right up there with the right to vibrate your vocal chords in public and use your ears to detect vibrations in air. To take away a human's access to these basic things because they are criminals is unacceptable.

RenierZA 15y ago

So they're battling online privacy? Say no to privacy! (or maybe yes to proof reading)

DanielBMarkham 15y ago

I would urge extreme caution about reading too much into this article. I (I'm a political junkie) saw Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) on TV yesterday. The message I got from his body language, nuance, and phrasing was something like "Obviously people who are elected from heavy technology areas are feeling a lot of heat. There's still a lot of support, though. Let's see if we can tweak this in such a way as to pass some kind of compromise." Maybe that's just Reid trying to keep the RIAA cash cow alive, not sure. But I was fairly certain that what I was hearing was a tactical retreat, not a strategic surrender. Not by any means. My money says next time they'll have some language in there that could be interpreted a bunch of different ways (to prevent informed debate), and they'll wait until the last minute and sneak it into some other bill that is a "must-pass."

dhimes 15y ago
I think you hit the nail squarely on the head, Mr. Markham. I too sense this is not going away soon. I don't even trust my own reps in the long term, and they are supposedly opposing. I think this issue will be to the RIAA what abortion is to fundamentalist Christians: they intend to fight this fight until they win it.
mattwdelong 15y ago
What scares me most is the fact that everyone knows this tactic. Write an absurd policy, debate it, offer an alternative and jam it down citizens throats. We know this, yet there is not much that can be done about it. Aside from the obvious, running for Senate and using your vote, what can be done to stop it? Someone with the right amount of money and enough motivation can pass just about anything, given enough time. I think, instead of protesting SOPA (or the next bill), people need to devise a method or position themselves so that they're in the right places to protect the average Citizen from such policies. These bills will just keep coming. Screaming from the side line is no longer effective.
- Retric 15y ago
  The way to stop it is to create and fund long term organizations devoted to stopping it. We have Greenpeace and PITA we need Net Freedom.

alan_cx 15y ago

Heh, first post here. Hi. Although I'm from the UK, I have been following this with keen interest,particularly as US authorities are able to pluck our citizens from our country on mere suspicion. Just to say, and Im sure you all know it already, you have not won, keep pushing and pushing until there is a law, but a fair just one. I don't want such laws, but there are inevitable. Just be sure they are laws that work fairly and properly. I think the thing to do now is for the community to create and propose its own law(s) and push that on the politicians. Present a credible alternative. Get the legislation we want, not what they want. Perhaps some one needs to set up a site where the on line community can collaborate in putting together a workable solution. Any way, congratulations for winning the battle, just remember that we still have the war to win.

marshray 15y ago
Welcome to HN! The problem is that US legislation can be changed in lot of weird ways between the time its introduced and when it's passed. For example, there could be popular support for a "Protecting Net Freedoms" act and something good could be introduced. But the special interest lobbyists would likely get a large amount of edits in, and the "provisions" added for "protecting (children|national security|the environment)" and "creating jobs". So at the end of the day, passing a "Protecting Net Freedoms" act would likely be worse than the status quo (which in the US is still quite good IMHO).
- alan_cx 15y ago
  Sure. I just mostly think that net folk should lead the debate and and offer something positive. Something that the general public can understand and support. That has to be the way forward.

dsplittgerber 15y ago

Awesome, so politians now have two large constituencies to milk: big media and internet-savvy technology companies/the general tech-savvy public. See, the only one profiting from this ordeal irrelevant of how it plays out are politicians. They get to enlarge their power and money base whenever anyone thinks an issue best be regulated by law.

shareme 15y ago

Now they will find a way to tack it on to any budget bill they can to hide it..as this how Congress really passes laws be very wary

bane 15y ago

Convenient this happens right before a bunch of sites go dark in protest.

ctdonath 15y ago

Caution is warranted: "shelved" bills all too often are left there untouched until circumstances warrant slipping them, or a palatable functional equivalent, through unnoticed. It's not dead, it's resting.

camiller 15y ago
As they say ... "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty" - Wendell Phillips
camiller 15y ago
As they say ... "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty" - Wendell Phillips

mgkimsal 15y ago

While watching the MSNBC video yesterday, Cotton's repeated assertions that this only applied to 'foreign sites' bugged me. From the SOPA text: -------------- (a) Definition- For purposes of this section, a foreign Internet site or portion thereof is a `foreign infringing site' if-- (1) the Internet site or portion thereof is a U.S.-directed site and is used by users in the United States; (2) the owner or operator of such Internet site is committing or facilitating the commission of criminal violations punishable under section 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2319B, or 2320, or chapter 90, of title 18, United States Code; and (3) the Internet site would, by reason of acts described in paragraph (1), be subject to seizure in the United States in an action brought by the Attorney General if such site were a domestic Internet site. -------------- So, a foreign site can be 'u.s.-directed' and used by users in the US. Doesn't sound very 'foreign' to me at all. Sounds an awful lot like 'domestic'. Yes, I'm sure there's legal interpretations of these words that I'm not aware of, but it sure as hell reads to me like when they say "foreign sites" they're not meaning 'foreign' in the sense that anyone in the US would reasonably understand.

thebigshane 15y ago
The Manager's Amendment clarifies that language. [http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/HR%203261%20Managers%20Amendment.pdf][PDF] http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/HR%203261%20Managers... Since it is still all legalese, I'll paraphrase (IANAL): a site who's domain name is registered by a registrar outside of US jurisdiction, OR if there is no associated domain name: an IP address of a server outside of US jurisdiction.

gerggerg 15y ago

Ok fellas, we still have some serious work to do. If it's not already painfully apparent, our current batch of representatives are completely ineligible to pass modern legislation. They're not idiots, they're not morons, they just don't have the relevant backgrounds to represent us anymore. The times have changed around them, and their skills and background are no longer effective or relevant enough. We need to work hard to get new representatives on the hill that understand and respect technology. The only way non oppressive legislation even stands a chance is if we have representatives that understand the workings of the internet and don't say things like "let google just hire some 16 year old wiz-kid to fix it". Seriously. It's no longer ok to be a representative and not understand the internet. It is a fundamental part of commerce, free speech, assembly, religion, education, etc. and it's outright dangerous to have people in office who don't understand it attempting to control it. It's up to us to get relevant, modern representatives in office. We just need to work together and do it.

drivingmenuts 15y ago

Now we need a way to get rid of Lamar Smith (R-TX). That SOB is just an idiot waiting to happen. Again.

marshray 15y ago
Really the most powerful signal that could come out of this whole debacle is to see just one congressperson lose their seat unambiguously because of their support for net censorship. I say, regardless of whether or not anything passes this year, we find one of the weaker sponsors of SOPA/PIPA who's up for re-election this year and make them pay.
oacgnol 15y ago
I can't believe this guy is representing part of Austin, where many web-based companies are located. I have to wonder why he authored the bill.
- drivingmenuts 15y ago
  Lamar Smith is a grade-A Republican shitheel who just worries about who or what has contributed to his campaign slush fund. It would appear that freedom of speech, to him, is something that should be paid for by the highest bidder. The level of ignorance this man has shown by authoring this bill and the amount of selling out he's done to corporate interests, rather than the people he ostensibly represents, is staggering. Unfortunately, the Texas Legislature has gerrymandered the state so badly that he's dug in like tick and will be difficult to remove.

jellicle 15y ago

It just means the congressmen involved are going to go back and get another hit of money from the copyright industry and then run this through attached to some other bill.

bcjordan 15y ago

> Though the administration's chief technology officials officials acknowledged the problem of online privacy Funny that this Freudian slip has shown up in more than one SOPA article.

darasen 15y ago

Congress will simply throw SOPA in as an amendment to some completely unrelated bill that people will have a hard time saying no to such as such as funding for puppies. Then if somebody opposes they can say "what about the puppies!" Certainly my example is silly yet unrelated amendments are made to bills all the time to push one agenda or another.