6 ms·

SOPA died in 2012, but Obama administration wants to revive part of it

182 points by northwest 13y ago

smtddr 13y ago
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/aynrand125008.html http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/aynrand125008.htm... Everyone's a criminal then law-enforcement selective enforces law on who they want taken care of.
- tptacek 13y ago
  No, every does not run a business feeding unauthorized streaming copies of movies or songs to customers.
adamnemecek 13y ago
In the future, there will be a more extreme version of rickrolling. People will send you links and if you open them, you will be sent to jail.
- northwest 13y ago
  I've never understood how prisons could be allowed to become private businesses. It's "evil" by definition.
  - snitko 13y ago
    I quite agree that the way it currently works, private prisons are the worst. However the root of the problem is not that they are private, but rather that they are still paid by the government. Private prisons have all the incentives in the world to hold prisoners for as long as they can, because they know government is paying and it's paying with taxpayers money. That is, bureaucrats by definition cannot be nearly as careful with taxpayers money as taxpayers would be themselves. That is not even mentioning various corruption possibilities. Now, for a moment, imagine private prisons and systems of law that are directly financed by each and every person and which have competitors. Most people's objective is to stay safe, not keep others in prison longer. This objective, together with the fact that they actually can see and decide how much of their income goes into imprisonment would serve as a powerful incentive for private law enforcement companies to focus on safety and prevention instead of incarcerating people (especially when it comes to victimless crimes). It's one thing to just vote and make a certain drug illegal, imprisoning all who's caught in possession, knowing full well that money one has paid in the form of taxes are gone anyway. It is a completely different thing to decide whether to have some additional money this month or pay for the imprisonment of someone whose lifestyle you dislike.
    - randallsquared 13y ago
      It's not clear to me that a private system of law would have any prisons, private or otherwise. At most, I'd expect very temporary jails for pre-trial, but the risk of having to pay restitution for kidnapping in the event that the suspect was found not guilty would make insurance very expensive. ;)
      - snitko 13y ago
        I agree. You'd still have to figure out what to do with violent sociopaths, repeatedly breaking laws and not showing any signs of change. I would probably agree to pay to keep em locked until (if ever) they are considered not dangerous to the society.
        venomsnake 13y ago
        Come on ... George Carlin solved it 20 years ago. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmJ2snsLxWw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmJ2snsLxWw I miss that guy so much
        popee 13y ago
        > I miss that guy so much And Bill Hicks.
    - alan_cx 13y ago
      Could the down voters of this post please explain why they down voted it? I ask because it seems quite reasonable and mild to me. What am I and the author of this post missing? Is there some massive killer point that has been missed, or something? Edit: it now seems less grey now!! Even so, my question still seems reasonable.
    - coldtea 13y ago
      >I quite agree that the way it currently works, private prisons are the worst. However the root of the problem is not that they are private, but rather that they are still paid by the government. Private prisons have all the incentives in the world to hold prisoners for as long as they can, because they know government is paying and it's paying with taxpayers money. Now, for a moment, imagine private prisons and systems of law that are directly financed by each and every person and which have competitors. How would this change anything, if not for the worse? In this version, they have an incentive to keep the legal system churning even more prisoners, so they can get paid more, build more prisons etc. That will end in a huge witch-hund, revamped racism, worse drug laws etc. People will not have the option "not to pay", because the law says those people have to be put in jail, and the jail is private (e.g municipal). And as for the prisoners themselves, they will get even worst treatment, they will try to make money out of them (forced prison labour), and they will try to keep the costs as minimum as they can, e.g shoving them in cells with 10 and 20 people, like in some Latin American hell hole. >It is a completely different thing to decide whether to have some additional money this month or pay for the imprisonment of someone whose lifestyle you dislike. Yes, so the "good people" in conservative states, say, might also say: "Why pay to keep in prison all these people? Make more offenses punishable by execution, and make execution procedures faster and cheaper, so we cat get rid of those n... (the n word), for, say $10K per head". So you might get pressure to get some people off for lighter crimes, but you'll also get pressure to execute people for things that would get 20-30 years or life currently.
  - gadders 13y ago
    Offtopic.
  - Prophasi 13y ago
    By definition? That requires some justification. The justice system still sets the parameters and manages the procedures by which sentences are handed down. If a court determines you're going to prison for 10 years, you're going -- the private company manages your environment for that time. And given that private parties also manage your medical care, hospital stays, air travel, car manufacture, work environments, home building, and thousands of other mechanisms and environments that determine your safety and quality of living, I struggle with finding a moral difference when it comes to prisons. You could argue that these other things are voluntary and prison isn't, but it's involuntary even if run by government; most inmates would opt out either way. And I think it's highly naive, this distinction between private companies as greedy, interested parties and government agencies and functionaries as objective arbiters of truth and goodwill. Either way you have ridiculous salaries, internal power struggles, marketing/perception, budget committees, and cynical people inured to the hard realities of the lives they affect.
    - pilif 13y ago
      It starts to become a problem when judges and district attorneys own shares of the companies that run the prisons. This creates a clear conflict of interest (the more people they can convict, the more money they will make) which so far doesn't seem to be noticed as you read about such circumstances at times.
      - Prophasi 13y ago
        That's fair, and unquestionably a conflict of interest. However, it's not an irrevocable quality of a prison run by a private company (and therefore evil "by definition"). OTOH, purchase of shares is at least an above-board, traceable interaction. Government officials have always gotten perks and kickbacks from private companies, rich individuals, NGOs, and their own budgets that are either off the books or disguised as something else, and therefore less transparent. I haven't seen (or yet hunted for) a study of publicly run vs. privately run prisons, in terms of treatment, costs, etc.; but I'd be curious, to say the least.
    - nrb 13y ago
      The issue isn't that the company is private, the issue is with the fact it's a for-profit entity. This leads to a host of perverse incentives such as providing the lowest possible level of care for the most money possible and a lack of effort put into curbing recidivism (repeat business!!). There are juvenile facilities that are run by non-profits and they exhibit lower rates of recidivism with a cost far lower than public prisons still.
  - Shivetya 13y ago
    private or government, I fail to see a difference. The increased incarceration in some states is pushed by the unions that represent the guards and other persons working the prisons, California is a great example. I think a better complaint is when prisons become tools of the political class. They create a feedback loop by having stricter and more laws than increase the prison population. That in turn means more prisons, more guards, more support persons, all who are unionized. They in turn pay more dues which becomes more contributions via ad buys or direct to the coffers of the legislator. Let alone all those union dues payers making their own contribution. Ask yourself, as a prison guard which benefits you more? Legislators legalizing pot or those who don't want it legalized? The same with about any law. If not asked at the individual guard level then ask at the union level.
    - jeltz 13y ago
      I do not think the unions are the only ones to blame. If so why are the unions a problem in California (a state with private prisons) while not close to as much of a problem in places with government prisons? My theory is that the owners and the unions work together towards the same goal. The owners get a very powerful lobby group in the unions.
- computer 13y ago
  With WebRTC any website can make all of its users P2P streaming servers. Without those users knowing it...
- jellicle 13y ago
  We already have that, but the people sending the links are the FBI.
  - Arnor 13y ago
    I seem to have missed this story. Do you have a link?(preferably the kind that doesn't get me arrested...)
- gadders 13y ago
  I think, given that viewing child pornography in the UK is a strict liability offence, you could do that here now.
- tptacek 13y ago
  Just to be clear, there's no proposed US law anywhere that would enable that attack.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
    - tptacek 13y ago
      I haven't read the child pornography laws, but criminal infringement requires a commercial objective. The prosecution has to prove both intent and an attempt to make money.
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
  - adamnemecek 13y ago
    It was a joke.
magoon 13y ago
Think about the starving artists - decades of downloading have crippled the entertainment industries so much thay there are no new artists, songs, movies, video games, software comlanies, television shows -- oh, wait...
- Svip 13y ago
  It's true, I still listen to New Kids on the Block.
- tptacek 13y ago
  I think you think this is more clever than it actually is, because the music industry has been torpedoed over the last dozen or so years.
  - pessimizer 13y ago
    music industry != music
ktzar 13y ago
I read SOAP... I'm so relieved it's not.
- junto 13y ago
  I know that Reddit style one-liners are scorned on HN, but your comment truly made me laugh. Thanks.
- Elrac 13y ago
  For what it's worth, I came here to say a similar thing. I was jubilant that SOAP had finally been put to a well-deserved rest. Well, of the two, I'd agree that SOPA is the greater evil. By a slim margin, anyway.
snsr 13y ago
Secondary liability for service providers and hosts on the internet remains a serious threat to the open web. Service providers should not be held accountable for the content of their users. This effort to bring back parts of SOPA, combined with a recent push by state attorneys general[1] to compromise Section 230 of the CDA are extremely concerning to me. [1] http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20130724/12345123927/state-attorneys-general-want-to-sue-innovators-children.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20130724/12...
- meanguy 13y ago
  That was actually one of the key points of SOPA -- it extended DMCA-style service provider protection to payment providers and ad networks. As for the "streaming" provision, that was (inartfully) meant to penalize the day 0 crowd, especially for unreleased media. It was not intended to penalize people downloading, watching, or what people who read this site consider "streaming." The language could and should have been cleaned up then; it all got lost amidst the SOPA screaming. Penalties for "streaming" are covered by the DMCA inside the US. It's how YouTube and UStream can exist. And I think we've seen precisely how many felonies and how much jail time resulted from cover songs and Justin Bieber lip dubs since that law passed 15 years ago. But right now someone outside the USA can take another party's shady (or well-intentioned stream) of a pay per view, wrap ads from an ad network around it, and accept PayPal in order to see the "unrestricted stream" (scam). And there's no legal framework to deal with it. That's obvious scammy theft regardless of where you stand on copyright. And all the "good guys" (ad networks, payment providers) remain liable whether they respond to takedown requests or not. SOPA let people take down the ads and PayPal links if they couldn't get the site down. It gave PayPal and Google the same kind of process and liability protection for payments and ads that YouTube already enjoys for video. This needs to get fixed and techdirt, boingboing and others need to hire someone with minimal legal expertise (optimally Congressional litigation support experience) if they're going to keep hammering this for pageviews and anti-copyright cred.
brown9-2 13y ago
What if you don't stream the copywritten work, and instead download it for later viewing/listening?
- tptacek 13y ago
  Neither of those are criminalized; this is an example of the kind of confusion the WaPo article has created by being absurdly imprecise about "streaming".
pearjuice 13y ago
Yeah, try killing this one too. And the one after this. After that. Followed by another one. See where this is going? We have to remove the root, not the leafs.
tptacek 13y ago
This is a confused and confusing article. The "streaming" to which it refers could mean any of a number of different things depending on the context you choose to read it in. Those contexts include: (a) "Streaming" as laypersons define it; literally viewing unauthorized streaming content from a service like Youtube. (b) "Streaming" in the SOPA analysis, as Zittrain and (unfortunately) Techdirt are discussing in the article linked from this WaPo post. (c) "Streaming" in the Klobuchar bill, which makes a very specific change to copyright law that isn't nearly as sweeping as SOPA. (d) "Streaming" as described in the Commerce report. I assume the WaPo is referring to (c) or (d), since that's the interpretation that squares with the headline. But then why is it talking about Justin Bieber and SOPA? Specifically: the Klobuchar bill closes a loophole in the copyright law that results from streaming being classified as "public performance" and not "distribution". Like other criminal infringement statutes, it requires the infringement to be commercial in nature to be prosecutable --- you have to build a business on your unauthorized streaming to have committed a felony. Unlike (as I understand it) SOPA, the Bieber Youtube upload would not be a crime in the Klobuchar bill. The Commerce report doesn't even advocate for Klobuchar; it merely recognizes the loophole in the law, which obviously does exist: you can build a Pirate iTunes Music Store and be charged with a felony, but build a Pirate Netflix and it's a misdemeanor. That is, in fact, a weird legal result. Finally, Bieber's opinion about his fans uploading unauthorized copies of his work is probably not relevant. Bieber sold his commercial interest in those works to recording companies, for spectacular amounts of money. It's easy for him to advocate for his fans right to traffic in unauthorized copies of his tracks; they're not his property anymore, and infringement is someone else's problem.
- meanguy 13y ago
  Thank you for this. Onc clarification: the "Bieber YouTuBe upload" takedown scenario remained a DMCA issue. The non-commercial = non-felony language was actually made even more explicit under SOPA.

182 points by northwest 13y ago

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/aynrand125008.html http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/aynrand125008.htm... Everyone's a criminal then law-enforcement selective enforces law on who they want taken care of.

tptacek 13y ago
No, every does not run a business feeding unauthorized streaming copies of movies or songs to customers.

adamnemecek 13y ago

In the future, there will be a more extreme version of rickrolling. People will send you links and if you open them, you will be sent to jail.

northwest 13y ago
I've never understood how prisons could be allowed to become private businesses. It's "evil" by definition.
- snitko 13y ago
  I quite agree that the way it currently works, private prisons are the worst. However the root of the problem is not that they are private, but rather that they are still paid by the government. Private prisons have all the incentives in the world to hold prisoners for as long as they can, because they know government is paying and it's paying with taxpayers money. That is, bureaucrats by definition cannot be nearly as careful with taxpayers money as taxpayers would be themselves. That is not even mentioning various corruption possibilities. Now, for a moment, imagine private prisons and systems of law that are directly financed by each and every person and which have competitors. Most people's objective is to stay safe, not keep others in prison longer. This objective, together with the fact that they actually can see and decide how much of their income goes into imprisonment would serve as a powerful incentive for private law enforcement companies to focus on safety and prevention instead of incarcerating people (especially when it comes to victimless crimes). It's one thing to just vote and make a certain drug illegal, imprisoning all who's caught in possession, knowing full well that money one has paid in the form of taxes are gone anyway. It is a completely different thing to decide whether to have some additional money this month or pay for the imprisonment of someone whose lifestyle you dislike.
  - randallsquared 13y ago
    It's not clear to me that a private system of law would have any prisons, private or otherwise. At most, I'd expect very temporary jails for pre-trial, but the risk of having to pay restitution for kidnapping in the event that the suspect was found not guilty would make insurance very expensive. ;)
    - snitko 13y ago
      I agree. You'd still have to figure out what to do with violent sociopaths, repeatedly breaking laws and not showing any signs of change. I would probably agree to pay to keep em locked until (if ever) they are considered not dangerous to the society.
      - venomsnake 13y ago
        Come on ... George Carlin solved it 20 years ago. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmJ2snsLxWw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmJ2snsLxWw I miss that guy so much
        popee 13y ago
        > I miss that guy so much And Bill Hicks.
  - alan_cx 13y ago
    Could the down voters of this post please explain why they down voted it? I ask because it seems quite reasonable and mild to me. What am I and the author of this post missing? Is there some massive killer point that has been missed, or something? Edit: it now seems less grey now!! Even so, my question still seems reasonable.
  - coldtea 13y ago
    >I quite agree that the way it currently works, private prisons are the worst. However the root of the problem is not that they are private, but rather that they are still paid by the government. Private prisons have all the incentives in the world to hold prisoners for as long as they can, because they know government is paying and it's paying with taxpayers money. Now, for a moment, imagine private prisons and systems of law that are directly financed by each and every person and which have competitors. How would this change anything, if not for the worse? In this version, they have an incentive to keep the legal system churning even more prisoners, so they can get paid more, build more prisons etc. That will end in a huge witch-hund, revamped racism, worse drug laws etc. People will not have the option "not to pay", because the law says those people have to be put in jail, and the jail is private (e.g municipal). And as for the prisoners themselves, they will get even worst treatment, they will try to make money out of them (forced prison labour), and they will try to keep the costs as minimum as they can, e.g shoving them in cells with 10 and 20 people, like in some Latin American hell hole. >It is a completely different thing to decide whether to have some additional money this month or pay for the imprisonment of someone whose lifestyle you dislike. Yes, so the "good people" in conservative states, say, might also say: "Why pay to keep in prison all these people? Make more offenses punishable by execution, and make execution procedures faster and cheaper, so we cat get rid of those n... (the n word), for, say $10K per head". So you might get pressure to get some people off for lighter crimes, but you'll also get pressure to execute people for things that would get 20-30 years or life currently.
- gadders 13y ago
  Offtopic.
- Prophasi 13y ago
  By definition? That requires some justification. The justice system still sets the parameters and manages the procedures by which sentences are handed down. If a court determines you're going to prison for 10 years, you're going -- the private company manages your environment for that time. And given that private parties also manage your medical care, hospital stays, air travel, car manufacture, work environments, home building, and thousands of other mechanisms and environments that determine your safety and quality of living, I struggle with finding a moral difference when it comes to prisons. You could argue that these other things are voluntary and prison isn't, but it's involuntary even if run by government; most inmates would opt out either way. And I think it's highly naive, this distinction between private companies as greedy, interested parties and government agencies and functionaries as objective arbiters of truth and goodwill. Either way you have ridiculous salaries, internal power struggles, marketing/perception, budget committees, and cynical people inured to the hard realities of the lives they affect.
  - pilif 13y ago
    It starts to become a problem when judges and district attorneys own shares of the companies that run the prisons. This creates a clear conflict of interest (the more people they can convict, the more money they will make) which so far doesn't seem to be noticed as you read about such circumstances at times.
    - Prophasi 13y ago
      That's fair, and unquestionably a conflict of interest. However, it's not an irrevocable quality of a prison run by a private company (and therefore evil "by definition"). OTOH, purchase of shares is at least an above-board, traceable interaction. Government officials have always gotten perks and kickbacks from private companies, rich individuals, NGOs, and their own budgets that are either off the books or disguised as something else, and therefore less transparent. I haven't seen (or yet hunted for) a study of publicly run vs. privately run prisons, in terms of treatment, costs, etc.; but I'd be curious, to say the least.
  - nrb 13y ago
    The issue isn't that the company is private, the issue is with the fact it's a for-profit entity. This leads to a host of perverse incentives such as providing the lowest possible level of care for the most money possible and a lack of effort put into curbing recidivism (repeat business!!). There are juvenile facilities that are run by non-profits and they exhibit lower rates of recidivism with a cost far lower than public prisons still.
- Shivetya 13y ago
  private or government, I fail to see a difference. The increased incarceration in some states is pushed by the unions that represent the guards and other persons working the prisons, California is a great example. I think a better complaint is when prisons become tools of the political class. They create a feedback loop by having stricter and more laws than increase the prison population. That in turn means more prisons, more guards, more support persons, all who are unionized. They in turn pay more dues which becomes more contributions via ad buys or direct to the coffers of the legislator. Let alone all those union dues payers making their own contribution. Ask yourself, as a prison guard which benefits you more? Legislators legalizing pot or those who don't want it legalized? The same with about any law. If not asked at the individual guard level then ask at the union level.
  - jeltz 13y ago
    I do not think the unions are the only ones to blame. If so why are the unions a problem in California (a state with private prisons) while not close to as much of a problem in places with government prisons? My theory is that the owners and the unions work together towards the same goal. The owners get a very powerful lobby group in the unions.
computer 13y ago
With WebRTC any website can make all of its users P2P streaming servers. Without those users knowing it...
jellicle 13y ago
We already have that, but the people sending the links are the FBI.
- Arnor 13y ago
  I seem to have missed this story. Do you have a link?(preferably the kind that doesn't get me arrested...)
gadders 13y ago
I think, given that viewing child pornography in the UK is a strict liability offence, you could do that here now.
tptacek 13y ago
Just to be clear, there's no proposed US law anywhere that would enable that attack.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
  - tptacek 13y ago
    I haven't read the child pornography laws, but criminal infringement requires a commercial objective. The prosecution has to prove both intent and an attempt to make money.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
- adamnemecek 13y ago
  It was a joke.

magoon 13y ago

Think about the starving artists - decades of downloading have crippled the entertainment industries so much thay there are no new artists, songs, movies, video games, software comlanies, television shows -- oh, wait...

Svip 13y ago
It's true, I still listen to New Kids on the Block.
tptacek 13y ago
I think you think this is more clever than it actually is, because the music industry has been torpedoed over the last dozen or so years.
- pessimizer 13y ago
  music industry != music

ktzar 13y ago

I read SOAP... I'm so relieved it's not.

junto 13y ago
I know that Reddit style one-liners are scorned on HN, but your comment truly made me laugh. Thanks.
Elrac 13y ago
For what it's worth, I came here to say a similar thing. I was jubilant that SOAP had finally been put to a well-deserved rest. Well, of the two, I'd agree that SOPA is the greater evil. By a slim margin, anyway.

snsr 13y ago

Secondary liability for service providers and hosts on the internet remains a serious threat to the open web. Service providers should not be held accountable for the content of their users. This effort to bring back parts of SOPA, combined with a recent push by state attorneys general[1] to compromise Section 230 of the CDA are extremely concerning to me. [1] http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20130724/12345123927/state-attorneys-general-want-to-sue-innovators-children.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20130724/12...

meanguy 13y ago
That was actually one of the key points of SOPA -- it extended DMCA-style service provider protection to payment providers and ad networks. As for the "streaming" provision, that was (inartfully) meant to penalize the day 0 crowd, especially for unreleased media. It was not intended to penalize people downloading, watching, or what people who read this site consider "streaming." The language could and should have been cleaned up then; it all got lost amidst the SOPA screaming. Penalties for "streaming" are covered by the DMCA inside the US. It's how YouTube and UStream can exist. And I think we've seen precisely how many felonies and how much jail time resulted from cover songs and Justin Bieber lip dubs since that law passed 15 years ago. But right now someone outside the USA can take another party's shady (or well-intentioned stream) of a pay per view, wrap ads from an ad network around it, and accept PayPal in order to see the "unrestricted stream" (scam). And there's no legal framework to deal with it. That's obvious scammy theft regardless of where you stand on copyright. And all the "good guys" (ad networks, payment providers) remain liable whether they respond to takedown requests or not. SOPA let people take down the ads and PayPal links if they couldn't get the site down. It gave PayPal and Google the same kind of process and liability protection for payments and ads that YouTube already enjoys for video. This needs to get fixed and techdirt, boingboing and others need to hire someone with minimal legal expertise (optimally Congressional litigation support experience) if they're going to keep hammering this for pageviews and anti-copyright cred.

brown9-2 13y ago

What if you don't stream the copywritten work, and instead download it for later viewing/listening?

tptacek 13y ago
Neither of those are criminalized; this is an example of the kind of confusion the WaPo article has created by being absurdly imprecise about "streaming".

pearjuice 13y ago

Yeah, try killing this one too. And the one after this. After that. Followed by another one. See where this is going? We have to remove the root, not the leafs.

tptacek 13y ago

This is a confused and confusing article. The "streaming" to which it refers could mean any of a number of different things depending on the context you choose to read it in. Those contexts include: (a) "Streaming" as laypersons define it; literally viewing unauthorized streaming content from a service like Youtube. (b) "Streaming" in the SOPA analysis, as Zittrain and (unfortunately) Techdirt are discussing in the article linked from this WaPo post. (c) "Streaming" in the Klobuchar bill, which makes a very specific change to copyright law that isn't nearly as sweeping as SOPA. (d) "Streaming" as described in the Commerce report. I assume the WaPo is referring to (c) or (d), since that's the interpretation that squares with the headline. But then why is it talking about Justin Bieber and SOPA? Specifically: the Klobuchar bill closes a loophole in the copyright law that results from streaming being classified as "public performance" and not "distribution". Like other criminal infringement statutes, it requires the infringement to be commercial in nature to be prosecutable --- you have to build a business on your unauthorized streaming to have committed a felony. Unlike (as I understand it) SOPA, the Bieber Youtube upload would not be a crime in the Klobuchar bill. The Commerce report doesn't even advocate for Klobuchar; it merely recognizes the loophole in the law, which obviously does exist: you can build a Pirate iTunes Music Store and be charged with a felony, but build a Pirate Netflix and it's a misdemeanor. That is, in fact, a weird legal result. Finally, Bieber's opinion about his fans uploading unauthorized copies of his work is probably not relevant. Bieber sold his commercial interest in those works to recording companies, for spectacular amounts of money. It's easy for him to advocate for his fans right to traffic in unauthorized copies of his tracks; they're not his property anymore, and infringement is someone else's problem.

meanguy 13y ago
Thank you for this. Onc clarification: the "Bieber YouTuBe upload" takedown scenario remained a DMCA issue. The non-commercial = non-felony language was actually made even more explicit under SOPA.