SOPA: What You Should Know & Why Dyn Opposes It

Are you familiar with the Great Firewall Of China? Sometimes referred to as the Golden Shield project, it’s a Chinese government censorship and Internet surveillance project kicked off in 1998 and put into action in 2003. Simply put, it enables the government to restrict what content its citizens can read and view via IP blocking and DNS filtering. If they don’t like a site request a user makes, it won’t get viewed.

Many dismiss what’s happening in China and chalk to up to their communist political system. That could never happen in a free speech-driven, rights for all society like we have in the United States, right?

If the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) introduced this week gets enacted into law, things could change negatively for Americans which is why Dyn opposes the bill.

Photo Credit: Web Pro News

What Is SOPA?

The goal of the bill is to “expand the ability of federal law enforcement to shut down foreign Web sites and services that use counterfeited or pirated content created by U.S. firms.” It was introduced by Texas Republican Lamar Smith earlier this week as a companion to the Protect IP bill introduced that would punish those web entities that host unauthorized, copyrighted content like movies, software, songs and anything else that can be illegally downloaded.

While online piracy is obviously bad, this is the wrong way to go about fighting it. We understand why the groups like the Motion Picture Association of America and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are supporting the bill as piracy of content costs the original producers/distributors tens of billions of dollars. They’re desperate for a solution to recoup that lost revenue. This isn’t it.

Why We’re Opposed To It

Web companies like Google, Yahoo and some of our fellow DNS providers like OpenDNS have strongly come out in opposition to SOPA and for good reason. Essentially, this bill would give the government more control into shutting down websites they don’t agree with in general. Anti-American sentiment promoted on Twitter, Tumblr or another one of our clients that promotes free discourse? Both the sites themselves and Dyn as their DNS provider could be penalized for simply providing a conduit in which someone can access or promote views the government doesn’t agree with — regardless of whether the source is based in the U.S. or not.

The Great Firewall of America? Yep, kinda feels like that. SOPA is a shot across the bow of free speech and as one of the largest Internet IaaS companies in the world, we cannot endorse it in any way, shape or form.

What Can You Do?

If you’re based in the U.S. and against this act, we urge that you e-sign this petition to ‘Stop The E-Parasite Act’. The initial goal was to get 25,000 signatures by the end of November and as I write this, there are more than 40,000. Clearly, this is a movement that is gaining momentum.

For our international friends, there is a petition here that has got a tremendous following.

You can also contact your local government officials and tell them you oppose SOPA. The more people that are heard, the more the government will understand that this level of control over today’s Internet is unneeded and unwanted. We don’t often rally the troops for causes such as this, so hopefully this post gets across the impact of how strongly we oppose SOPA.

Other Posts Of Interest

SOPA: Why Do We Have To Break The DNS?
Protesting SOPA With Website Blackouts

Adam

Glad you followed up — I was wondering why you weren’t taking a strong stand against.

http://dyn.com/ Jeremy Hitchcock

Thanks.

Rtallon

I’m sorry I can’t support your cause at this time. You say the goal of SOPA is to “expand the ability of federal law enforcement to shut down foreign Web sites and services that that use counterfeited or pirated content created by U.S. Your rhetoric says “this bill would give the government more control into shutting down websites they don’t agree with in general.” Your claim appears to me to be unsubatantiated conspiracy theororist jargon. If the tools (SOPA) used to stop piracy have the potential to be used for censorship” I cannot support your cause. If the tools (SOPA) to stop is piracy are permitted by law to be used for for censorship, then I will gladdly jump on your band wagon and call my congressmen. Could you provide more information from the propsed bill to support your claim that SOPA WILL be used for censorship?

m1el

>Could you provide more information from the propsed bill to support your claim that SOPA WILL be used for censorship?SOPA gives opportunity to 0.1% of internet users to control the whole Internet.
What else do you need?

MrMe

it gives 100% of the internet t users to control the whole Internet.
What else do you need

Tramp

Problem with censorship infrastructure is that it will be used once it is available and the usage can’t be controlled. How do you prove that the government is blocking sites if you don’t even know that they exist? We had a similar discussion in Germany. Such things are always introduced with a “good” reason. First it is only used to block sites that offer pirated goods. Then maybe sites that contain other content that might be perfectly legal in most countries but not in the USA. OK, from there it is only a small step to also block sites that contain critical comments about the government etc.
There are other means if contents is illegal in the country where it is hosted. Inform local authorities and ask for removal of the contents. Problem fixed.
But creating a censorship infrastructure is a no go.

Rtallon

If we would have blocked the approval of ARPANet in 1968 or prevented it’s release into thwe wild in 1983 we would not be having this discussion. Opportunity or potential to violate the Constitution does not give the governement the permission to circumvent the Constitution. Even if Gongress passed a law that would give the Adminitrative branch the ok to censor the internet there is the Legal branch that would uphold the Constitution. It would take an amendament to allow the censorship. SOPA is a mear law not an amendment. Doubt if you had this similiar discussion in Germeny. Besides, if the governmet wanted to censor the internet they do not need a law to block piracy to do it. If they want to control the Internet they have the technology, they have the ability. Prove they aren’t doing it already. If you want me to oppose SOPA, prove to me the government needs it to violate my Constitutional rights.

Josh

That is assuming the system of Checks and Balances works as it’s designed.
https://openid.packetizer.com/paulej Paul E. Jones

Introducing a network like ARPANet is nothing like introducing laws that restrict what people do. Today, if my own web site did not work, I could report the problems to my service providers and they would do something. If this law passed and the government decided something about my site was unacceptable, not a single one of my service providers would lend a hand. If I’m blacklisted by the government, they would not be able to help me.

Let’s just consider the immediate issue at hand: “piracy”. Like others here, I’m not supportive of piracy, but America’s definition of piracy is not the same as every other country in the world. This law would force American companies to push American laws and values on foreign countries. That’s just not right. Perhaps one of the best example of this is the MP3 web site “AllOfMP3″. The RIAA kept arguing in courts in Russia and the Russian courts, as I understand, declared them a legal entity under the laws in Russia. With this new law, the RIAA could just complain to the American government and the foreign web site would be shut down without any due process in the home country under the laws that govern the business.

I have personally seen the DMCA abused in ways like this. There is a company in Australia that claims to have patents on products that are sold here in the United States. Said company has filed DMCA claims against sellers of products that supposedly infringe on their patents. They did this claiming the products infringed on a copyright. There’s a world of difference between a copyright and patent violation, but not to the business that is presented with a DMCA declaration. To avoid being fined or sued, most service providers will honor all DMCA claims — even if they are bogus. It would not surprise me to learn that the RIAA or MPAA has already abused the DMCA, and I certainly would not want to extend more power to them. With this new law, a business’ entire web site can be forced into the dark without going through the due process of the law.

We do not need this new law, because laws already exist regarding piracy. If somebody is infringing, they can sued, jailed, fined, etc. A person charged with violating a crime should be given a right to defend themselves. SOPA will take away that right.
Zenzation

Rtallon, I appreciate your thoughtful consideration of the call by Dyn for us to oppose SOPA. I have some concerns too. While I understand Google and other’s desire to leave the Internet free and open, this medium has provided an opportunity for countries like China to steal intellectual content from the USA, use that to make products cheaper (not having to do the required R&D on their own) and then put the intellectual content owner out of business. The bankruptcy of Solyndra, which everyone is all over the President for giving them half a billion to start up their solar panel company, was caused because the Chinese sold our technology and flooded the American market with cheap solar panels with which Solyndra could no longer compete.

Likewise, software, music and movies are being pirated all over the planet, depriving America of one of its last exports. Online piracy is part of the reason America’s economy is in decline. At some point, someone has to recognize there are some bad guys out there that steal things that are not protected and few things that can be put on the Internet are exempt from being stolen. It amazes me how the same customer that might help tackle a shoplifter they observe taking something from a store, will sit idly by and allow their son to download pirated songs and movies, if not to it themselves.

As Rtallon notes, the Constitution will protect us from any abuse of the power that SOPA gives the government. The theory that the government will shut down sites that oppose its policies is over the top paranoia. We have got to do something about the theft of intellectual properties on the Internet, otherwise none of us who make our living using the Internet are safe.

ITNewbie

Information gets out there, and using something like Solyndra as an example for how somebody did something cheaper and faster than a US company with its snout in the trough is an example of the free market working the way it should, not of ‘piracy’ of intangible goods.

For the 2nd paragraph, yes, you export a lot, but a recent Dutch survey found that users of torrent sites such as the pirate bay are MORE likely to fork over for band merchandise and live performance tickets. Personally, I’ll torrent a album and if I like it, I’ll buy it, otherwise I’ll delete it and never listen to it again.

As for the constitution, I believe the first amendment quite clearly establishes a line between religion and the state. Why, then, is your currency printed with “In God we trust”? I could understand if it was a private currency, but this is legal tender provided by the government. Moreover, the things done by the government that we’re told are authorised by the commerce clause (famously in Wickard v. Filburn, more recently with the healthcare mandate) are pretty clear indicators that once the framework and legal precedent is there, the government won’t care what recourse you think you’re entitled to. Want more examples? Have a look at your laws under the guise of the “War on Terror” and the “War on Drugs”. Your government cannot be trusted with your own domestic laws, let alone those that affect those of us outside your country.

JOHN DOE

The bill allows the content provider to make a charge against a website which will shutdown access to it for 5 days if any part of the website has any copyrighted content on it even without evidence or proof. This is written like all copyrighted content legislation where the content provider has all the power and the consumer doesn’t really own just rent the product in their eyes.

The bill was written so broadly and lacks a checks & balance feature
because the accuser doesn’t require proof other than being a copyright
owner and the site accused doesn’t have a recourse option if falsely
accused. How broad is this bill? Let’s say your kid is having a birthday party and you decide to record it and link it your youtube account and share it with others by twitter and facebook because the off key singing of “Happy Birthday to You” song was a riot. The copyright holder of the song decides you infringed on their property so they report you, youtube, twitter, facebook, all the dns providers, and all the search providers that links to it for it’s removal. The government can fine you and put you in jail for 5 years and all those other web entities could be shutdown for 5 days for something most people would consider as part of the fair use doctrine (in this case it wouldn’t since the bill is worded to shutdown the accused site for 5 days without recourse). In addition to all of this all these businesses can also get cut off from electronic payment entities till it’s cleared up during this period as well.

Stifle free speech, how is that done? Let’s say you blog about a topic that could offend a politician, company, or a foreign country for some impropriety or rights violation. Your evidence is overwhelming and your continued posting is gaining support quickly since you are becoming a go to person for other sources to pass on more evidence you can host links too and making an impact against the violating entities. Unfortunately for you the violating entities have ownership or connection to a media content provider within the US. They decide to have a few fake posters pop up on your blog’s comment section and post various torrent links to copyrighted content from their holdings and their competition and pass the information to those competitors discretely. Your site gets shutdown locally due to the allegations you host illegal copyright right content, your site is very popular and have mirrors in other countries which also is denied access in the US due to being reported to hosting illegal copyrighted content and that site stops receiving funds from American electronic payment companies due to hosting your blog even though you nor they did anything illegal. The foreign site due to lack of funds for continuing to host your blog now removes your blog thus censoring you so people can have access to the other parts of their site from the US (when they shutdown access to your blog the other entity made the request to shutdown access to the entire domain to discourage them from supporting you or anyone else in the future who speaks ill of them).

How can it be used politically? Let’s say you’re a politician running
up against another corrupt politician who is being backed by some
immoral content provider. Due to the political power your opponent wields you decide to have your site mirrored on a foreign server in the event they shut you down locally. To try to persuade people you finger the
company the other party works with and post some excerpts or worse yet
you only finger them and one of their employees from a public wifi
hotspot posts on your sign in book or forum where you deal with your
supporters a copyrighted to materials they own torrent link showing that
your site participates in violation of their holding. They can report
you and your site, in effect getting your site shutdown and you jailed
or fined for it. In the meantime any electronic funds donated on your
site to help your campaign gets stopped as well since you are a
copyright violator in the eyes of the law. This happens for five days,
during key times this is the difference between winning or losing, this
censorship of your site and blocking your funds allows a dishonest
person using the laws of the land to take you down.

What I don’t like about the bill is that the accusing entity doesn’t even need evidence other than they are a copyright holder and even items that were in the past protected by the fair use doctrine aren’t protected either, so if you simply take a small clip or even parody of it that’s a violation by this law. It’s further compounded by lacking any means for the accused party to defend themselves or even have a means to contest it to keep their site up. Since any site will eventually have someone post something even by accident on it that has a copyright that didn’t approve it (a site can give youtube permission to host it but if you embed it to facebook they may not allow it thus you violated the law), we’re talking major slippery slope. Please don’t take my word or example of the bill to make a judgement about it, read it for yourself how ludicrous it is.

Rtallon

John – Thank you for the valid discussion. The comments in your 1 and 2nd paragraph make alot of sense and provide proof to substantiate a claim why I should oppose this anti-piracy legislation because it is poorly written. If what you say is true (and I believe it is, but also believe in “trust, but verify”) I would oppose this bill because it goes too far in favor of the copyright holder and lacks checks and balances to protect the accused.

You almost lost me in the 3rd paragraph with “let’s say”. “Let’s say” is the start of conjecture, what if, presentation of a hypothetical situation, a lead into a conspiracy theory discussion. Your conspiracy theory is, what if others want to break the law in a way to use this legislation to violate my rights. Jermey’s thoery is the government using it for censorship (“give the government more control into shutting down websites they don’t agree”) Your hypothetical situations posed in paragraphs 3 & 4 do not support Jeremy’s claims of government abuse.

After reading the E-parasite page I have decided that I will not sign the petition supporting the claim this legislation is a “censorship law”. I will however do more research and possibly (likely) send correspondance to my congressmen asking they not support the bill because of potential abuse and other constitutionality issues (too much authority with too little verification).

Jeremy – Thank you for your lack of censorship by allowing critical analysis of your discussion. I am enjoying the sharing of ideas in this debate.
Charles

You said: “What I don’t like about the bill is that the accusing entity doesn’t even need evidence other than they are a copyright holder…”

No. The accusing entity needs to provide, under penalty of perjury, all the information in sections 103(b)(4)(A)(i) through (viii), including specific facts supporting the allegation that the target website is dedicated to theft of U.S. property. To be sure, “dedicated to theft…” is a much higher standard than merely having some infringing content. See 103(a)(1)(B).

You also said: “It’s further compounded by lacking any means for the accused party to defend themselves or even have a means to contest it to keep their site up.”

No. See, e.g., 103(b)(5). It’s enough to merely have a good faith basis that the target website is not dedicated to theft of U.S. property, and then you get to ignore the accusation without consequence.

You said: ”Please don’t take my word or example of the bill to make a judgement about it, read it for yourself how ludicrous it is.”

I ask: What are YOU reading?
Walker

Well that is a very real possibility, try not to make the entire bill seem so “doom and gloom.” We can’t demand congress vetoes every broad bill that comes into the house. What we CAN do is write to our representatives about our concerns and demand they address them. Whether they do or don’t is a whole different issue of our government.

As for checks and balances, there is an entire different set to rely on if all fails in congress and the bill passes unamended. This is where groups write to the president, whom in the midst of the upcoming election season will be eager to please constituents. If that also fails, there is the courts system to ensure such blatant abuse does not pass through the system.

Well it is a dangerous possibility, it is not nearly as bad as you made it sound.

(Gosh, this “Rtallon” character sounds just like my English teacher and has me on edge here.)
Fred

” To try to persuade people you finger the
company the other party works with and post some excerpts or worse yet
you only finger them and one of their employees from a public wifi
hotspot posts on your sign in book or forum where you deal with your
supporters a copyrighted to materials they own torrent link showing that
your site participates in violation of their holding.”

I’d like a law against people posting sentences like this without proper punctuation. What does it mean?

Avider

One only has to look at the FISA law about domestic wiretapping, and how the government is blatantly ignoring our constitutional rights (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=1537691#.TsqkWnLNn7Q) to see how easy it is for the government to “take a yard” whenever we “give them an inch.”
http://dyn.com/ Jeremy Hitchcock

Why provide the strong, unchecked ability to shut things down then?
Cnfdcwby

Rtallon, Have you ever seen the government launch a Bill that would be used for one purpose and one purpose only?
If this Bill is passed it sets a precedent and opens the door to further government intrusion into the internet. Perhaps to require you to apply to the Government before you can purchase a domain name?
In my 64 years I have seen many well meaning laws twisted to mean whatever those in power want them to mean.
When you give Government a little power, they won’t stop until they control the issue completely.

Fernando

I agree with Rtallon. If the law only reaches piracy, it should not affect free speech on sites like twitter or others unless they have illegal content for download

levp

EDIT: there is some due process in this bill – in a form of a judge. But the proposed law is still overly broad (read the the part of the Wikipedia entry on Mozilla Firefox).
Gil

In an ideal world I would agree with you.
But let’s suppose, just for a second and for the sake of argument, that the law is mis-applied and other sites that are not related to piracy get blocked.
How can it be independently verified, that this is happening?
It simply is not possible, because these sites are blocked.
It’s a kind of ‘catch 22′: you want to see why the sites are blocked but you cannot because they are already blocked.

Unfortunately, mankind history is full of episodes where “good intention” laws have been introduced and (not so much) later have been outragingly mis-used.

Law is enforced by men, and men are not trustworthy, when it comes to ‘power’.

So I agree it is serious risk to give anyone anything even vaguely similar to “carte blanche”, when fundamental rights and liberties can be at stake.
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_GSLO4RIXWYPAI2EPRQTF25KLRQ Br.Bill

History shows that legislators and lawyers will misuse a law written for some other purpose to enforce an unrelated policy or pursue a judgment that the law was not meant to produce. Improperly used legislation that was originally described as “it should not …” has become a cliche in this country.

Phil

Free speech is non-existent already, I have been removed from various blogs for different issues, and had NO recourse to the all powerful ADMINISTRATOR
The web is not free, ICOA have full control, it is a commercial entity.
The fact that we need a service like DynDns is proof of the lack of freedom on the Internet
If the problem of piracy was limited to a few songs or the occasional movie, there would be no issue.
We in the west value a fair go for those who are inventive, those in the east are glad of our western help in designing products for them for free, then they flood them to us on E-bay, removing our ability to compete, thus costing western jobs
Wake up, protect US Jobs

Ian Gardiner-Smith

Hi Phil,

Cannot see why DynDNS is proof of the lack of freedom on the Net. DynDNS is is used by most there to get around a technical issues with (not enough) IP addresses.

BTW I am against e-Parasite, but not an American.
Guest

“They” are not stealing anything, they are given the exact paperwork to produce the DVD’s and anything else including gulf clubs by the same corporations that wish to take the US jobs to places where they don’t have to worry about the environment or other laws that would control what was in them. Is it any wonder that in those same countries, they must be a minority stakeholder to do business, so it is thier business ruining thier market place and they want us to give up our rights so that they can get that yearly bonus.
Doug Gallardo

There is Freedom on the internet, and it is proven by my ability to read your post here. Being removed from a forum by an admin is part of the process, and you have no recourse because you do not own any part of the forum. It’s like cursing out your boss, getting fired, then complaining that the company has violated your right to Freedom of speech. If you have a complaint about being removed from a forum, the internet is not responsible for making your complaint heard. Instead, you can satrt a blog for free, using the Freedom of the internet, and complain all day about how horrible it was to be removed from those forums. Then, you could include links to those forums and quote whatever text got you banned, and no one would remove you. There is a difference between the Freedom of the world domain internet, and the Freedom of a privately owned message board/forum.

Also, “protect US jobs” is a very vague and hypocritical statement. Did you know that the computer you are using has thousands of components inside of it which were made in foreign and third-world countries for pennies on the dollar, compared to the price of the same product in the US? Anything that was not made within the US from the bottom up is taking away US Jobs. And you would be hard pressed to find anything more complicated than a baseball bat that is made entirely in the US anymore. Even your GM SUV has plenty of parts which are manufactured or assembled in Mexico or China.

The commercial entities who are getting ripped off by pirates choose to use the labor in those third-world countries because it is cheaper and under less scrutiny than a similar operation within the US. The manufacturing companies are the ones taking jobs away from Americans, not the people on the internet who value Freedom.

Gloonie

I tried to sign the petition but got a 404 – Page not found when I logged into whitehouse.gov. Any ideas?

http://www.dyn.com Josh Nason

Here’s the full link: https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/stop-e-parasite-act/SWBYXX55

Gloonie

I tried that link, and once I sign in to whitehouse.gov, I get the 404 message. Has anyone been able to sign the petition?

Lola J. Lee Beno

Can your share your thought on what would be a viable alternative bill?
http://www.facebook.com/carlos.pfitzner Carlos Pfitzner

I’m sorry I can’t support your cause at this time. You say the goal of
SOPA is to “expand the ability of federal law enforcement to shut down
foreign Web sites and services that that use counterfeited or pirated
content created by U.S. Your rhetoric says “this bill would give the
government more control into shutting down websites they don’t agree
with in general.” Your claim appears to me to be unsubatantiated
conspiracy theororist jargon.”

*while trying to stop piracy, SOPA will in realityy doing censorship, to be able to find counterfeited content

I cannot support your
cause.

Sorry
Carlos_Pfitzner
Some

What’s the difference between the USA and China? They want to stop the freedom of people to express themselves. What’s the point on intervening with others countries affairs when they suppress people from media if the USA it’s doing it themselves?

USA it’s a dictatorship.
Guest

Until enforcement agencies acknowledge fair use, SOPA & the like are criminal operations.
Elk

This is really serious. Government is a service for us all, and no service should have the right to make us stop speak. This is a completely wrong idea of what a free society is.
Robert Evans

I cannot support your opposition. Laws are needed to keep us safe from thieves, crooks, charlatans and other evil doers. If the intent of the law is violated, we need to bring the enforcers of the law to account. Anarchy is never a solution.

Anonymous

He’s not advocating anarchy. He’s saying SOPA is not the right way to approach the piracy problem.
http://dyn.com/ Jeremy Hitchcock

I believe in stopping those actors too. But I also think about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came…
Doug Gallardo

You’re right, laws are needed to stop all of those people that you mentioned, but the intent of this act is not in alignment with its implementation. As an analogy:

A city is overrun with criminal trafficking of narcotics. You know that the narcotics are coming into the city from neighboring towns. Instead of working with the government of those neighboring towns, you decide to shut down all highways coming from those towns. Sure, this stops the narcotics from entering your cities, but it also stops anyone inside your city from going to or through those towns. It implements undue action on the citizens of your town who would otherwise have zero involvement in narcotics trafficking. The next step would be shutting down streets and highways WITHIN the city to combat suspected narcotics involvement. On top of this, anyone can accuse you of involvement in narcotics and have your street shut down, guilty until proven innocent. This already happens with drug enforcement laws in real life, so why wouldn’t it happen in the digital space?

You don’t shut down the streets and highways to stop people from engaging in criminal activites. You find the criminals and stop them, without implementing your rule and oppression over everyone.

Oppose group punishment.

We who are against SOPA have stated that it is bad in many different ways, and those like you have asked “what’s the solution?” The solution is the same as it has been for thousands of years. How have we been dealing with theft since the beginning of time? You educate children and society as a whole. You teach children that theft of intellectual property is the same as any other kind of theft, despite the fact that you cannot “see” it. I have seen informercials and ads in the beginning of movies, which have been an attempt at informing the public, but it hasn’t been very widely expanded. And the infomercials that have been issued have been pretty vague (specifically the one with the young girl at the computer downloading a movie; had I no background in the piracy issue, I wouldn’t understand what that was about). There are a lot of people in our society who don’t even know that piracy is a crime, or that they are even doing it. I have known older people who have come to me with computer viruses or other problems and stated that they got something on their computer after visiting a site that their son or daughter told them was a good place to download music. They had no idea they were engaging in piracy.

Our society has a changed a lot since the origin of our definition of stealing. It used to be that theft was only possible of physical things, and ideas. Now, when most of our lives and creations exist in digital space, it is possible to steal things that are not physical, and still cause similar damage.

Education is the solution.

Hong

I am ver sorry but I am unable to understand your logic here. I have read you post multiple times. I cannot link anti-piracy to anti-free speech. If I understand your argument correctly, are you implying that we should get rid all government law enforcement because the government may arrest people they simply don’t like.

Microsoft loses 95% of its potential revenue in China due to the rampant IP piracy, and the US loses probably $50B to $100B every year to IP piracy. When I got your email, I was eager to find out your better solution to deal with the IP piracy issue, but I could not find any proposal implicit or explicit. I would surely support you if a better way to deal with the outright stealing is offered. I did not know this bill until I received your email. Actually I have been looking forward to the day when the US government has to backbone to stand up to the totalitarian regime in China to demand fair play. This bill is not exactly what I look forward to, but a good indicator showing the government is strengthening its vertebrate.

http://dyn.com/ Jeremy Hitchcock

The example of privacy in China shows that many of these methods are not successful anyway with piracy. What we don’t want is to live under warrantless surveillance that comes about as a response to piracy.

Hong

I am not sure what you mean by “The example of privacy in China shows that many of these methods are not successful anyway with piracy”. The regime in China does not have SOPA. To the contrary, they implicitly encourage IP piracy and industrial espionage. So far, the US adminstration does not have backbone to fight the outright theft.

Uzzah

I would suppose that what he means is that China has outright firewalled an entire country and still has the worst track record for piracy in the world. Thing is, short of dismantling the internet entirely, piracy will never be stamped out. Never. Build a better mousetrap, the mice get smarter. Anyone that has followed piracy over the years has seen technologies come and go. Piracy is worse than it ever has been. In fact, directly because of RIAA efforts, piracy has become more widespread and much easier to accomplish. Ask those crazy guys in Sweden. All that will be accomplished is the steady erosion of internet freedom
that we’ve all become accustom to and that some of us value. For any of you that don’t think this will happen, remember the Patriot Act, Guantanamo, legalized water boarding, or the invasion of an entire country(s) predicated on lies. Remember Airport Searches, pat downs of little kids in airports by security personel. Having your bottled water, shampoo and toothpaste thrown in the trash because “its the rules”. Now give some of that power out to a corporation thats out to make more money.

Hong

Well, IMHO, to the contrary of your conclusion, China exemplifies how a government can selectively filter out online materials. Their effectiveness is well known and well documented (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Firewall_of_China). In the meantime, IP piracy is rampant in China. Are they unable to control it or they do not want to. I thought the answer was obvious.
Doug Gallardo

“In fact, directly because of RIAA efforts, piracy has become more widespread and much easier to accomplish. Ask those crazy guys in Sweden”

I agree. I have known plenty of people to pirate digital content simply for the sake of fighting against entities like the RIAA et al. Sure, everyone can afford to pay 99cents for a song through Amazon or wherever, but many people choose not to because it’s spitting in the face of those entities.

If I buy a music CD, I never buy them new. I always go through the discounted used section of Amazon, so that I avoid putting money into the hands of those bodies. Just as I would rather drive across the country than fly, just to try taking one job away from those TSA agents.

Guest

As I don’t condone piracy in any shape or form, I can not support a bill that is written in such broad terms as to allow the misuse of such an act as this one is written. Censorship by anyone without strict guidelines leads to use of control by those in power for their own agendas.
Gast

It is not important to know what is good or bad, important information is good or what is bad. Education is getting better and better as a lock.
Adrian

It’s amazing the power large corporations have in influencing government officials.
The bottom dollar is what is driving this whole SOPA movement.

Where-as the big corporations controlling the copyright content will be able to shut down websites with no proof of evidence, it will be (likely) impossible for a mere individual to do the same if they notice their original copyrighted content posted on a large corporation’s forum (for example).
In this case I fear the pendulum only swings one way.

If the power was equally distributed between EVERYONE to control piracy I would not object to this bill being passed, but since only a select few have access to the button, I don’t see how this will be a “fairly” used system. I should have the same rights as the corporations to stop piracy, but alas, I somehow don’t think I do.
Mostlyfiction

I would love to support your opposition to SOPA! Although I’m a happy DynDNS user and true believer in a FREE internet, I’m a Canadian Citizen and am pretty sure adding my voice could be seen as foreign intervention by the proponents of SOPA. Keep up the fight for true freedom and dignity for all!

Gerrit308

I’m in Canada as well. But you are wrong, the US already forces its laws on Canada. Our upcoming Copyright Bill is slavish in its bowing to MPAA and RIAA pressures.
For those in the US, it is not your government that you should fear in this bill, it is the companies behind it. For every significant piece of legislation, there is a financial motivation behind it. Follow the money, it leads to the MPAA and RIAA every time. Note that it is not the artists who get that money! They were paid once a the time of the work, e.g. acting in a movie bit part. All residuals go to a few people, and not likely creators at that.

Bob

I support the opposition to this bill.
And if we are talking about balances and controls, we shall talk about Government having a public list of blocked web sites and reasons they were blocked. Also there should be a controlling consumer agency that would have an independent internet access and would verify that the blocked site was blocked due to the reason stated on the Gov. board. Plus, the agency should also be pursuing any complaints made by site owners if their web sites were blocked and are not on the board, or blocked because of the different reason than it is stated on the board.
I am not sure who is supposed to finance the agency, though. Could a part of the public radio
Steveg

The default position should be to oppose such a law unless there’s a proven need for it.

Handing the government censorship power over the internet to make Hollywood happy is not such a need. This is a bad law and will be used to censor discussion the gov’t disagrees with. Even if you don’t agree with that, how can you be sure?
JustAnotherWorthlessArtist

While I understand your point, it would behoove any artist, musician, writer, who creates digital content, to support this bill – so as to stop the rampant piracy of copyright materials.

You state:
“While online piracy is obviously bad, this is the wrong way to go about fighting it.”

Then what is the way to go about fighting it?

You state:
“We understand why the groups like the Motion Picture Association of America and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are supporting the bill…They’re desperate for a solution to recoup that lost revenue.”

What about the little artist, record label, producer who is getting just as ripped off? Don’t make this an us against them the big bad guys of industry. This has a profound effect on all of us “little artists” as well. Frankly I am sick and tired of releasing music and having it appear for free within days of its release, on sites that your company hosts!

TAKE SOME FREAKIN’ RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE PIRACY YOU ENABLE!

Dude

You may have unrealistic expectations for the monetization of your digital art. You’re talking about ensuring the scarcity of digital information (your art) within a domain that makes it easy to find and transmit any information! Data is data. In this day and age information is free; stuff (physical stuff) is not. If you want a reliable way to make money, sell stuff.
Assigning the act of people sharing digital information the label “Piracy”, and trying to create an ad-hoc mechanism to control it, is a naive act of futility. It’s like you are trying to un-invent something. And maintaining that mental attitude is a non-sustainable way of being. Use your creativity and evolve your mind, dude
http://twitter.com/verb0ze verboze

The problem with this bill is that its primary goal is to protect U.S. firms, not the little guys. Do you think the MPAA gives a dime about the little independent guy, who most likely would not have the resources to use this protection anyway? You are only as important to them as the amount of revenue you generate from them. An example, to illustrate how this would actually work against the little guy:

The Internet is a free trading place, where you can set up shop with minimal resources, and start selling your goods. You, the artist, are able to promote your work because there are platforms out there on the net which allow you to reach millions of users with minimal to not cost to you; even better, you have the freedom to host your own content (and may for example choose a hosting company in Germany because their prices/offerings are better-suited for your needs). You are doing great, you make decent money, etc. The “big” records companies notice, and are not too happy you are doing this “outside of the system”; I.E., you do not have a record & distribution deal, where they take a cut of your profits. They also notice you sampled some of their “copyrighted” material. You, your site, and the Youtubes and Vimeos hosting your promotional content all get shutdown.

Now, I wouldn’t think this is far-fetched for most “little artists” today. Sites give artists avenues to express/expose their art will also be targets here, no just sites that host illegally acquired content. They are far more lucrative the the firms than those pirate websites in comparison, because they reach out to users who will actually buy your product.
Paul

I do not think that any artist is worthless. However you are denying people their freedoms. Do we stop people from using paper? It can be used to copy books, pictures and many other copyright pieces. Did we stop people from owning tape machines? They could be used to copy. Did we stop people from owning DVD recorders? On the last one the owners of many copyrights sold the machines to people, then complained about abuse. Why is the internet as a medium any different. Here in the UK we have a name for people who make such suggestions, Luddites.

I care that you make a living. I would not like to break a copyright.

I care more about my freedoms.

2c

Pirates won’t care about the US web locking itself up. They’ll still happily copy away and share with the whole rest of the world, the lost “market share” is minimal.

Besides, MPAA et all have it all wrong. There is no lost revenue, as the vast majority of people that download pirated content wouldn’t ever had bought it at the crazy price levels they’re practicing.

This is a fight worth being fought. They already lost, however, even if they don’t realize it yet. It’s like we were all living on the moon and they were selling air: an easy sell, quite lucrative. But then we all moved to Earth, and they still try to sell air, at the same price than before. Whatever coercive schemes they’ll come up with, they don’t stand a chance.

Adrian

Piracy is as old as time itself. Times have changed and so have the pirates. And there will always be piracy.
I am in no way supporting piracy; I wish everyone was a good person, but they are not. It’s the reality of human nature.

The record companies should take some responsibility and solve their own problems rather then “making a law” when they say they’re loosing money.

Bob

Your parents had the right to control your Internet usage when you were a kid. The company you work for has the right to control your Internet activities when you grew up. And now Uncle Sam wants to control your Internet activities period. Great.
2c

Pirates won’t care about the US web locking itself up. They’ll still happily copy away and share with the whole rest of the world, the lost “market share” is minimal.

Besides, MPAA et all have it all wrong. There is no lost revenue, as the vast majority of people that download pirated content wouldn’t ever had bought it at the crazy price levels they’re practicing.

This is a fight worth being fought. They already lost, however, even if they don’t realize it yet. It’s like we were all living on the moon and they were selling air: an easy sell, quite lucrative. But then we all moved to Earth, and they still try to sell air, at the same price than before. Whatever coercive schemes they’ll come up with, they don’t stand a chance.
Will

Ultimately, I’m against this bill but, when you say “this
is the wrong way to go about fighting it,” what are those correct ways?
If Google, Yahoo, Dyn, and other web companies can’t solve the issues of spam,
piracy, etc, it’s not going to be long before more and more people will start
endorsing these types of Bills. It won’t be long before people are willing to
give up their freedoms for security, just like in real life.

The Internet is this great world right now, full of
freedom. If the pirates, spammers, and scammers aren’t controlled soon, our
online freedoms will vanish along with them.

10 or 15 years ago, I would be 100% against a bill like
this. I have to admit, I’m at about 80% against it now. We better learn how to
control these criminals our way before our freedoms are taken over by politicians.

https://openid.packetizer.com/paulej Paul E. Jones

The issue here is that *we* are not the police and *we* are not and should not be obliged to “control these criminals”. That’s the job of law enforcement. If an American citizen is violating the law, then charges can be filed. Those who are illegally distributing or selling copyrighted material can be found through existing means and existing laws, after which those violating laws can be brought to justice.

So, get the notion out of your head that any service provider should be playing police officer. The extent to which any service provider should be involved is answering a court order for required information relating to offending material.
http://twitter.com/verb0ze verboze

I completely agree with Paul. *We* are not giving up our rights in order to be safer on the internet. The “firms” are buying our rights from the government so they can protect their assets and old ways of doing business. The explanation of SOPA in the article:

[The goal of the bill is to “expand the ability of federal law enforcement to shut down foreign Web sites and services that use counterfeited or pirated content created by U.S. firms.”]

We’re not talking about the government protecting us from terrorist sites, spammers, I.D. theft, etc here; we’re talking about the media companies being given the power to take down sites under the claim of piracy. I’m sorry, but those companies need to find ways to secure their content and/or change their business practices to make it harder/futile to pirate. Look at what Apple did to the music industry. Music pirating has gone down and people buy music online because business models changed and aligned with how users wanted to get their content, not because laws were put in place to prevent pirating of music. I agree that companies have the right to protect their content, but not at the expense of my freedom. Just like in “real life”, give the government (or in this case, the U.S. firms) power to “protect” you out of fear, and it/they will abuse that power beyond your expectations.

Bigjoesweeney

Would the bill allow them to shutdown US Firms that infringe on foreign patents or Trademarks? I think it is very silly to think that a single country can apply their local laws to other territories they don’t have jurisdiction in without going through proper legal procedures in that country.

The TLD .com, .net etc should be reserved and managed by a global body and come under its own laws that are set out by the laws.
Charlie Orford

Jeremy: you may wish to add a link at the end of your post to this video: http://vimeo.com/31100268 (found via http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/internet-censorship-sopa/) – does a good job at explaining the issues for people that are new to SOPA.
Ccviper

Clearly this law would set in motion the slippery-slope necessary for the government to begin censorship duties from outside the US. When responsibility for ARPANET was transferred to the private sector, it no longer became the responsibility of government to regulate its content. Differences in opinion, or points of view, happen all the time and regulation is a form of censorship. Any kind of regulation and ostensibly for “good” reason to get a foot in the door. The Patriot Act comes to mind immediately, allowing government to essentially throw away Constitutional guarantees whenever it is deemed necessary. Who decides when it is necessary? Who decides which site or the amount of proof necessary to close a site? Bait and switch comes to mind once again as the SOPA bill attempts to stop illegal content stolen from America from being re transmitted? Here’s a sobering question: how much content offered on a site qualifies it for censorship? A single item? 10% of the content? And again, who decides? Is there a rebuttal process? Does it occur after the fact or before? And so what if it is proved to be stolen, did the American makers of the content use foreign nationals or illegal aliens to produce it without disclosure?
The issue here isn’t thieves from across the borders, the issue here is to get our own house in order. This bill was introduced by a congressman who is member of a body that can’t balance it’s budget! Children go hungry every night in this country and some haven’t a decent place to sleep! So now we have a bill backed by the MPA and BBB, both of whom simply are crying because they haven’t got it all! Well, I feel better, I’ve finally gotten that off my mind!
Bob

The root cause of the problem is as always – plain greed.
Let me give you an example. With the Internet coming into our lives, we got used to the idea of instant satisfaction of our quests. We need information – we search Google, Wiki, etc. We need to watch a movie – we do not want to wait until this movie or a show will be on TV, we want to watch it instantly. So we get the fast Internet – like FiOS – and we subscribe to Netflix (for example). And then – wow, the Netflix does not have this particular movie available for the instant watch because the motion picture company did not sign a contract with Netflix because they decided, that we, the consumer, are not worth of having this movie for the instant watch. Mind you Netflix has this movie on DVD and can send it to you next day, so what’s the freaking difference?! - and you’re paying your $10/month. You can receive it tomorrow. But tomorrow you can’t watch it and you are in the mood for this movie now. So, what do you do? You go on the Internet and search for a possibility to watch it off any site. Remember – you are paying for Netflix and you feel you’re entitled to watch it instantly, right?
So, the solution – get all the movies for the instant watch, have the price increased from $10 to $15 and you will solve a lot of problems and no artist will be deprived of the income.

https://openid.packetizer.com/paulej Paul E. Jones

It has already been shown that Netflix can’t just increase prices so much. Sadly, people do not have a right to view or hear copyrighted material. I tend to think no copyright holder should purposely restrict distribution, but they do. Disney did that with Lion King for a while as they brought it back to theaters. You could not buy a copy of the DVD and it was not available from Netflix either as a DVD or streaming. Now, the DVDs are readily available in stores and Netflix offers the DVD, but no streaming. Controlling distribution is Disney’s right, though the only reason for this control is to maximize profits… to milk an old product for as much as one can get. What other industry can make money on products that are so old?

In any case, the point of this dialog is not about existing laws, but on allowing copyright holders to have more power to shut down web sites without the due process of the law, to shutter web sites that are not even obliged to adhere to American law, etc.

Bob

This is a problem that does not start with bootleg streaming and does not end with it being prohibited by US Gov. I tried to get a bigger picture. The whole model needs to be re-vamped. Human psychology has changed, there is no coming back to renting movies from a closest blockbuster or video store. I am sure even if the sites will be banned, there will be alternative ways to get to the stuff you want. Proxies, ports, etc. The only way to solve the problem is by dealing with the root cause.

http://twitter.com/verb0ze verboze

Only if it were that easy . I’m sure Netflix would love to increase the price (or even retain it at the same price-point — with the intention they will get more customers as they carry more of what users want to watch). Sadly, the movie studio is the one who loses here. They want their share too, and they currently get it by selling you content on DVDs/cable channels at a higher price-point than what Netflix proposes. But I get your point. Something will have to give, whether it’s customers paying the more, whether it’s Netflix or the studios absorbing those costs, or whether some new business model that meets each party’s interests is invented.

Bob

Right. You either adopt to a new ways, or face a prohibitive action. And we all know too well that prohibition just doesn’t work.

Lokibjensen

Thank you. I know you are doing the right thing and will gladly sign the petition. This is just one more incremental grab of power by the wrong people. Lots of people here don’t understand how this happens little by little until one day the individual has no more rights. I’m a big history buff and looking at recent history is sending alarm bells through my spine. For those that would dismiss this as “conspiracy theorist jargon” I would just say that they are not paying close enough attention to what’s going on around them and need to turn off the TV. Thanks again!
Anonymous

Companies already cooperate slavishly with the US government in the name of ‘national security’ so should we still expect there to be a firewall between companies and the government?
Huizs

Piracy is a problem, anyone except those who profit will agree. One needs a method to stop and punish it. It is not fair to punish companies who offer internet services, but pirats have to be stopped. I think so far we agree.
Luckily enough you are living in a democracy and you can stop a government not applying basic rules to that democracy with the next elections. One could also say , it’s you guys whom elected the people that come up with these new laws. And remember, it’s the same government that refuses to obey to human rights laws in the US and criticize other countries for doing the same. There are more important issues for the US to solve then SOPA. And it’s up to you to find and elect leaders that behave like you expect the to do.
May I suggest you to, instead of just criticizing, come with a better proposal instead?
darmil

All I need to know is that Lamar Smith is behind it. I am against everything he stands for.
Guess

I have a strong objection to signing a online petition on whitehouse.gov, the Obama website. Very dangerious with this nut that will send investigators. While I am opposed to the SOPA, I would not put my name where this president could make up a hit list from the signers.
Scott Marcott

While there is an issue with controlling things such as spam, and piracy, this (SOPA) is not it. The technology we have today can target files/servers with more effectiveness then a broad brush approach. I have been a programmer and network engineer for over 20 years. I have worked for Government contracts, private industry, and fortune 100 companies. With that in mind, I have never needed to ask the government to protect my servers, or customers. It was my job, just like it is your job, and every other person that uses the net. If we keep handing over our control of what WE do to governments then we are giving them the notion that WE can not think or decide for ourselves. Nothing is free, including Freedom.
David

This legislation is dangerous and once again the US Chamber of Commerce backs the group that pays it the most money, not what is best for most US business. Cancel your Chamber membership in protest.
Jd40

This is censorship of the Internet – just the way China went when the Government was afraid of people speaking out…
It is already possible to “police” the Internet and this is demonstrated by the number of court cases in the UK and also Worldwide in joint operations against real criminals. It is already possible to locate people, even if they hide behind a proxy or TOR, so I get the feeling this is large media companies trying to put pressure on people. They think that people want to watch their films, listen to their radio stations and buy their products. It’s complete madness. Censorship will make things far worse and will NEVER work!
CULHH

Moin moin Jeremy,
which problems You have or cause Yourself with those s.c. “federal bills” in north america do not interest us here in the free part of the world a single bit. The leading European iT-society can only gently smile over Your warries, which we might have tackeled in the middle ages. Your s.c. “federal bills” behind the Atlantic is as important to us as if a sack of rice right now falls over in Mongolia !!!
MfG
Stefan TV Ström
CUL Hamburg Ltd

Scott Marcott

Wow, that’s insightful. Seeing that the world economy and your internet goes through the United States. Now I’m sure you’ll tell me I’m wrong. However the Internet was started by DARPA and Bell Labs, moreover all the network NAP sites are in the United States and all of the connections. Wait… I must be wrong… IANA was in ?? Oh yeah, the United States. So maybe you should look at how this works because it will affect you.
Guest

“do not interest ‘us’ here …” By “us” are you referring to yourself as some sort of collective, i.e. a borg hive (using a Startrek lingo), or like some kind of megalomaniac who is dillusional to think he’s got a right to speak for the entire nation? Who’s “us” anyhow, and by the way, “you might have tackled in the middle ages” does not mean whomevevr you are referring to actually did…tackle.. anything…

Dergor

Do you
think the Great Firewall Of China was made against pirates, spammers, and
scammers? Pirates, spammers, and scammers are just some preposition words. It is US government censorship and Internet
surveillance project same as in China.
This is preludes to brainwashing project.
guest

The New World Order is raising today !
This is not a fantasy anymore, and within the next 5 coming years,
we’ll all live in a fascist communist country.

There will be no countries anymore.
All will be unified to have ONE Country, ONE Governement, ONE Bank.

All internet will be censored, and the microship in our hands will be the new bible.

Welcome in the NEW MODERN SLAVERY SYSTEM

Welcome TO THE NEW WORLD ORDER.
Joeslevengates

I think our governments are going way too far as to what we can do and say and for that matter look at. Where is our FREEDOM?
David

Merely stating that SOPA is not the way to deal with the problem offers no solution. What is the way to deal with the problem? When you can offer some constructive answers to that question then I think you have something that can be offered as an alternative to SOPA.

I personally don’t like giving politicians the type of power that they would have under SOPA, my experience is that they invariably mis-use such power for their own political purposes. e.g Communist China’s web censorship.

However there is a definite need to take action against rogue web users who host sites in countries that do not take action against them (in practice it’s my understanding that some of these sites are actually government sponsored by those countries), or where US law cannot be applied to them under current legislation. I get several spam emails a day that are designed to obtain my bank details. I would be glad to see this stop and SOPA, or an alternative, would help to stop them.

Scott Marcott

As I have stated in a former post, “We (Internet users) can control what we do too.” Rather then allowing the government to think and act for you, it is better to show that us laymen people can and do think for ourselves. You want to stop piracy? Stop downloading it, stop your kids, have self control. Or we can simply allow the Government to think, act, and plan for us. It’s worked before right?
Doug Gallardo

Just because something has to be done, doesn’t mean it has to be THIS. Consider: you have a fire, you want to put it out, but you don’t have any water, you have plenty of is gasoline; do you pour gasoline on the fire just because it’s the only thing you have right now? No. You find an alternative.

Doug Gallardo

-is. Damn typo.

A Canadian

Having only heard bits and pieces of the content of the bill itself, my understanding goes something like the following. Anyone with a copyright can shutdown any website simply by pointing the copyright arrow at anything on the website, regardless of whether or not the accusation is true. Goodbye to youtube (I’m just sayin…). Furthermore, any company that owns any parts of the network that were used to distribute this content can also be shutdown. So because someone clicked the wrong link, the entire AT&T network gets shut down.

As a Canadian, I have always looked at US politics for the humor. Seeing a small group with lots of money pay to have everyone else dig their own graves has been rather amusing. Hopefully I can ruffle a few people’s feathers in reminding anyone who reads this comment that the Nazi regime started out with media censorship and identification (remember the government controlled, all-in-one-online-id feature?).

Scott Marcott

Humor like NAFTA right?

Jon

I oppose SOPA.
Guest

Appears link to sign petition is broken.
Ficose

Of course Google, Yahoo and DNS etc are going to oppose it. They will loose revenue.

Scott Marcott

Thank you for the perfect example of what a sheep would say. It’s not about revenue, that’s the guise. If you wanted to boost revenue then you would only have “live” or one-time performances. Bootlegs, Pirates, Etc… it’s all buzz words for the simple fact of control. You should have it, but the government wants it. If you have ever downloaded an image by mistake, like hit a porn site, then you could also be shutdown for it. Why? Because your web browser just downloaded illegal content. Yeah that makes sense right?

Duncan

Something must be broken as I can not sign in with my registered email address or the new one that I just created… why should that surprise me it’s part of the government after all. Anyway I oppose it even though I can’t sign it… I will try again later.
Ausesq7

Laws are like tools in a toolbox. The more they create the more creative ways peeople find to use them, while the tools intended purpose is often not its actual purpose in the first place. Screwdrivers pry, punch holes and turn screws on occasion. Copyrights were originally intended to PROMOTE free-thinking and the creation of works of art. However, money stemming from “ownership” in all aspects , is what most often corrupts all noble purposes. Now copyright is simply another form of ownership or control to gain advantage for more money. The pendulum has swung too far. There is a need to protect property rights too, however the balance needed is far too risky under this law, when placed against the backdrop of greed to the level we have grown accustom, and to which have now finally woken up. The internet is too new and too all-encompassing a force to be handled with such a cavalier approach of vagueness in its articulation, as if we should just “trust” the system and those who come into it (subject to change with each “election”). This is even more alrming and disconcerting, when it comes to relying on such a “trust” for a bill who’s primary purpose is merely to safeguard the money potentially lost by mega rich conglomerates owning the world already as it is. It also clearly takes “fair use”, the bastion of the lay person in the land of copyright, and discards it along with all the creative thoughtful opinions which make us Americans. Regardless of its use at all, simply by enactment, it will casue average citizens to recoil from expression, through fear of the haunting threat of “who knows what” from “who knows where”, on a constant basis, effectively dismanteling creativity before anyone even reaches in the tool box..
Serge Hulne

There is also the Avaaz.org campaign on the same subject which has already obtained 745,376 signatures (at the time of this writing), see:http://www.avaaz.org/en/save_the_internet/?copySerge.
Ian Gardiner-Smith

I am not an American and therefore cannot sign the petition. Is there anything us foreigners should do to put pressure on the US as it appears to me that it will seriously damage the good relations that the citizens of the net enjoy with most government of the world at the moment?

If enforced would the US government use that power to stop the open protest which keeps world democracy on a sure footing (think Egypt, Libya etc), you bet they would.

Whatever happened to the First Amendment?

Info

http://www.avaaz.org/en/save_the_internet/

Ian Gardiner-Smith

Just a thought.
Why are so many of the posters here anonymous, are you afraid?
Cesar Reza

I disagree with SOPA, so the same I disagree with piracy and fraud committed through the Internet but do not believe that this initiative is the way to stop these people personally I think it’s something retrograde and anachronistic, I strongly support free thought and free digital Frontiers

Thanks and hope that this initiative does not progress

Sincerely Cesar Reza
Antonio

Sounds like we needs ‘Merchant of Venice’ clause

per the you can “have your pound of flesh, but must not spill a drop of blood doing it.”

yes, you can shut down the site ‘preventing access to the’ , but at the same time you must not cause any additional harm
i.e. any other legitiimate activity/use or user must not be impacted either.
Scott Marcott

Here is the link to one of the bills, note within the first two pages..
“To promote prosperity, creativity, entrepreneurship, and innovation
by combating the theft of U.S. property, and
for other purposes.”
http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/112%20HR%203261.pdf
The scary line is : “… and for other purposes.”

Erret

To promote prosperity, creativity and innovation by combating in Iraq and maintain my troops well trained.
It is a human ‘point’, I like to share with millions of people my child´s birthday in you tube, facebook and twitter.
he he. We Humans are the first to break these points sharing my privacy.
I control you and I need people to control me, who control the controllers?

Lorem I. Dolor

You say it is the wrong way of doing it. What in your opinion is the right way to do this?

There was a debate here in Australia a while back on this same issue. I’d like to hear what you see is a way to enforcing law on criminal activities online.
PVD-Kirkland US

Thanks for the great explanation, this is just another example of how corporate interests are opposite human interests and how we must remove the politicians who only server corporate interests. Good for you becoming involved this way. I will forward your post to as many friends and colleagues as I can.
Igor

Dear Rtallon, “If the tools (SOPA) to stop is piracy are permitted by law to be used for for censorship,…”The Law agreed US aggression in Yugoslavia and Iraq…
Are you really believe that something will stop US government against the network aggression in case of some “vital interests”?!
Charles

Most of the points above are wrong, to an embarrassing degree.

First, full disclosure: I’m a lawyer, although I don’t work in the copyright field. I don’t anticipate ever using SOPA in my professional or personal life. I only started looking into SOPA because of the beating it’s been getting in the press.

Second, I’m not necessarily a SOPA cheerleader. There are some provisions I’d write a little differently. But SOPA is definitely not getting a fair shake in the press, so my purpose here is to at least help people — including Jeremy Hitchcock, if he reads these comments — to fully understand it.

Finally, the full text of SOPA is here: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-3261

I’m going to refer to the text of the statute below. I would be highly suspicious of any criticism of SOPA (or any statute) that doesn’t refer to the text of the statute itself.

Without further ado, a few things to note:

1. SOPA sets forth two modes of enforcement. Section 102 gives the attorney general the power to shut down foreign sites by requiring appropriate third parties (payment system, ad system, DNS, etc.) to stop supporting the foreign site. But the AG can only do this if the foreign site would otherwise be liable under existing copyright law. (See 102(a)(3).) In particular, promulgating an “anti American” point of view isn’t enough. I’m not sure where Jeremy Hitchcock got an idea to the contrary.

2. To be sure, this is something that’s done through the courts, with full due process afforded to the parties. See 102(b)(5). It’s not the 5-day takedown process. That’s section 103. Speaking of that…

3. Section 103 gives copyright holders the ability to send notices not just to website operators, but also affiliated third parties like payment networks and ad services, but only if the target website is “dedicated to theft of U.S. property.” That’s defined in section 103(a)(1)(B). Paraphrasing that section, a website is “dedicated to theft of U.S. property” if any of the following are true:

- the website has “only limited purpose or use” other than to infringe copyrights or trademarks. (103(a)(1)(B)(i));

- the website deliberately “avoids confirming a high probability of” infringement in its content. (103(a)(1)(B)(ii)(I)); or

- the website advertises itself as a place to find infringing stuff. (103(a)(1)(B)(ii)(II)).

4. If a copyright holder wants to send a notice to an affiliated third party, they need to aver under penalty of perjury that they believe the target website is dedicated to theft, and they have to state the specific facts that support that belief. (Section 103(b)(4)(A)(iii)). This mitigates, at least a little, the potential for abuse. And as the law develops and certain lines become clear (… or at least clearer), it will be harder and harder to send unfounded takedown letters.

5. Moreover, if the recipient of such a letter has a “good faith basis” to believe the target website is actually NOT dedicated to theft, all they need to do is send a counter-notice back to the copyright holder stating as such. Section 103(a)(1)(B)(5). If that happens, the copyright holder is back to pre-SOPA style remedies, like trying to get an injunction in court.

6. In other words, the last two points mean that Dyn won’t get a SOPA letter saying “Hey, we’re Viacom, and we want you to pull the plug on youtube because they have an infringing video.” Instead, Dyn will get a SOPA letter saying “Hey, we’re Viacom, and we believe this website is dedicated to theft of U.S. property for the following reasons. Pull the plug please.” And then Dyn can look at those reasons, or talk to the website proprietor, or whatever else it wants to do.

If, at the end of the day, Dyn doesn’t think its customer is dedicated to theft of U.S. property, Dyn can write back, “Hi Viacom. We looked into it, and we think you’re wrong. Sorry.” Viacom can then go to court, but it has to prove that the website is DEDICATED to infringement (as defined above), not merely that the site has a little infringing content.

Scott Marcott

Nice spin on the legal jargon but you failed to read the bill statement at the top,
From your link and I quote ” To promote prosperity, creativity, entrepreneurship, and innovation by
combating the theft of U.S. property, and for other purposes.”
so what is “Other Purposes”?
Didn’t find that in the rest of the 78 page bill?

Charles

Two things:

1. If you’re calling my post above “spin,” I’m not sure we have the same meaning of that term. For me, “spin” means slanting the truth or giving an inaccurate impression of something in order to further a goal. It’s usually hard to spin a statute if you’re quoting and citing to it directly. If you think what *I* wrote was spin, how would you characterize the main post? Specifically, the part where the author warns about how SOPA gives “government more control into shutting down websites they don’t agree with in general,” even though that seems to be nowhere in the statute. See, I’d call THAT spin. At best.

2. Okay, but about your question on “other purposes.” That’s standard Congressional throat-clearing. You’ll find that at the beginning of just about any bill. For example, here’s a bill I pulled at random, the Maple Tapping Access Program Act:

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/webreturn/?url=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.1275:

It begins, “To support State and tribal government efforts to promote research and education related to maple syrup production, natural resource sustainability in the maple syrup industry, market promotion of maple products, and greater access to lands containing maple trees for maple-sugaring activities, and for other purposes.”

I don’t know WHY that’s standard Congressional throat clearing, but I suspect it has to do with statutory construction. That is, Congress doesn’t want to give the impression that it has carefully and exhaustively listed all the beneficial purposes of a particular bill.

Note, however, that the “other purposes” paragraph of SOPA appears outside the text of the bill itself, therefore it’s not legally operative. So if you’re worried about a scenario in which the Attorney General suddenly decides to confiscate all the ice cream and ponies in the country, saying, “Ah ha! This is one of the secret ‘other purposes’ in SOPA (and the Maple Tapping Access Program Act), so I am acting purely through authorized congressional authority. And you, the foolish electorate, voted for it! Hahahahahaha!!!” Then… well… that’s not how it works.

Jim (JR)

Charles,

First of all, I am no lawyer, (aside from reading the occasional opinion on FindLaw), but in the words of a famous ex-President: “I want to make one thing **PERFECTLY CLEAR**. . . . .”

IMHO:

1. Whenever I see the word “censorship” or even anything within a good rifle-shot of it, I immediately get very suspicious and concerned. It’s like a politician saying “Trust Me!” If YOU want to believe him, sure – go right ahead.

2. the Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that “censorship” – particularly when it regards any kind of speech or information sharing – is anathema. Especially in this case where I am sure it would be construed as a “prior restraint” – the mere existence of this law will serve to chill perfectly legitimate speech because of it’s broad sweeping powers.

OK, you say that “Piracy” doesn’t count as speech. True. But not everything these guys call “piracy” is actually piracy. Most of these companies want to forbid even legitimate “fair use” of copyrighted material.

(a) Copyright law considers the creation of an archival backup copy of copyrighted material a “fair use”, if it’s not redistributed to others.

Example: You have a car full of young children, and you take them somewhere. To keep them from going nuts on you, you bring their favorite Disney movie for them to watch. Of course, if you have small children, you know what happens to DVD’s – they get destroyed fairly quickly. Obviously, what you should do is make ONE copy to use, and put the original away. If the copy gets destroyed, you throw it out and make ONE new copy for their use.

This is – unquestionably – a fair use under copyright law.

However, the DCMA – purporting to reduce “piracy” makes it a criminal offense to defeat the copy-protection on that DVD so you can make a copy for your children to destroy. Are you “piriting” the DVD? Of course not, however – given the broad sweep of the DCMA – even something as simple as that could land you in jail bigtime.

(b) Brunner was sued by the MPAA for posting (as a downstream poster) of DECSS. (viz.: http://www.dougsimpson.com/blog/archives/000288.html) and the case was eventually dismissed on both First Amendment and Trade Secret laws claiming that it amounted to a “prior restraint” and since the DECSS code was known widely prior to the time Brunner got to it, the MPAA could not invoke the California Trade Secrets Act.

You would support the SOPA because the acts being controlled have the potential to be used in inappropriate ways. OK, let’s stipulate that. Then again, automobiles can be used in “inappropriate” and even illegal ways. Water can be used for criminal acts. So can gasoline. . . . Should we prohibit or implement some kind of “prior restraint” on the use of automobiles, water, flour (which is a powerful explosive), or gasoline?

This goes on and on and on and on.

To summarize, and I am suggesting this to everyone who reads this, please go find a copy of John Ford’s famous WWII documentary “Why We Fight”. The very first film, on the very first DVD, talks about the situation in Hitler’s Germany at the time – and it is eerily like the United States of today. So much so that it actually begs the question of to what extent the US and its governing bodies have become truly fascist.

Seriously! Go view the film and make your own decision.

Bottom line: This would give the US government way, WAY too much authority than they should have over something that’s really none of their business – there being enough, and more than enough, present laws to deal with this without something as broadly sweeping as this would be.

What say ye?

Jim (JR)
Luigi Bianca

it is rare to find lawyers who hide their name while they plead a cause :-). But tell me, Charles, are you sure that ”Other Purposes” together with ”theft of U.S.property” is not written to provide the Government a legal instrument to close down the threat faced by sites such as Wikileaks exposing illegal actions (and sometimes crimes) committed by the U.S. Administration ?

http://www.facebook.com/xkiller213 Gabriel Lim

Wow now this… Imagine Apple files a case to have Samsung/HTC/LG/(any other Andrioid manufacturer, and maybe Google themselves) blocked from the Internet!!! Not many people would be too happy I imagine…
Guy

This sounds all too familiar. I live in Australia, and leading up to the last Federal Election, the Government started talking about a mandatory Internet Filter at the ISP level. This filter was intended to block Child Pornography, (which I believe needs to be eradicated).
When the Top Secret list of blocked websites was leaked, it was found that there were only a small number of offending sites on the list. Most of the proposed websites that would have been blocked, had nothing to do with child pornography at all.
The US Government might be swearing black and blue that this SOPA bill will only be used to shut down foreign Web sites and services that use counterfeited or pirated content created by U.S. firms. Didn’t the US Government also say that there WERE weapons of mass destruction in Iraq…
Mark Edgell

As a Canadian, I will not sign a petition against a US law. However, I hope that tens of thousands of Americans get on board and put a stop to this nonsense. We have given up our rights in the last 50 years at an astonishing rate. We have to stop that and this is a great place to start.
Eddie

Not being a US citizen or resident in the US, my signature would be of little use. However, I should make the point that it is precisely this kind of arrogance which antaginizes so many people in other countries. I believe also that one should be wary of giving federal authorities anywhere additional power. It is much easier to give than to remove.
Wolfgang

“…DNS provider could be penalized for simply providing a conduit in which
someone can access or promote views the government doesn’t agree with …”
Strictly speaking that also means that the government can cut off your phone line because your Internet Service Provider (ISP) is providing you such a conduit to that content via your Internet connection to the ISP. So – what’s next?

Craigypoos

lol … the electricity provider, for providing the electricity to power the offending computers, and then the coal provider for providing coal to the electricity provider, then the plant company for providing the earth movers for digging the coal, then the petroleum companies for providing the fuel to power the plant … and so it goes on lmao!

Zezanje500

USA is one of country which controlling evriting in all world
is no one terorist gaverment whic distroy oll whic is need freedom or think with his head.
Attila Ferenc

As a citizen of an ex-communist country, let me share just one little thing: censorship in any way or form is a bad thing. Don’t make the mistake of thinking that a goverment, in any shape or form, can provide positive censorship, while not stepping over and do a bit of “preventive” censorship.
Once you hand over control, nothing short of a revolution will get it back. So, the best course of action is not to give up on your rights.
50 or 60 years ago, in european countries, laws of this type were called “salami tactics”. You know why? Because by censorship laws like this, they took away freedoms and gave themselves (the government) rights by one slice at a time. Pretty soon there was nothing else to give, nothing else to take.
I’m very sorry to say, but as an outside observer, the US seems to be heading down the same path. If this bill is put into law, you have lost any right to call yourselves different and above, lets say China, for example.
Lars Öberg

The key concept against SOPA is “ändamålsglidning” a Swedish word for “drift of purpose”. We have seen it many times during the last decade and will surely see it again. And again.
And that DO highlight the need to oppose every tendency to state terrorism..even the steps of SOPA!
Georg

I’d like to sign the e-petition, but I don’t have an account for the whitehouse-petition-portal, hmmm…

Anyway: I’d like to say you from germany, that I support your petition!
Thank you very much for your engagement!!!

Best Regards
Georg
Gostling

Here in the UK pooly drafted counter terrorism legislation has been abused by local government agencies to pry into peoples lives and activivities that have nothing remotely connected with terrorism. Yes, software piracy is theft, but poorly witten legislation like this is not the answer.
Richard Pettigrew

SOPA ammounts to Cencorship of Free Speech on the Net by the back door. Everyone should oppose it.! Even here in the UK!
mcfeth

I have no problem with a kill switch to stop all foreign attacks on the web directed to the USA.
But I feel that our government doing it for people who own copyrights is the wrong reason.
They have money and resources, let them protect their content, our government will prosecute them then.
The US’s part of the web is under constant attack, our infrastructure, our government are losing the battle.
Maybe we should spend the money on protecting our freedom, not some profit off a damn picture of anyone.

We have to have a mechanism to stop all outside US attacks, a internet kill switch would work.
Then we can track down the bad guys and ruin their systems, so they cannot do it again.
The seriousness and magnitude of this problem is lost to our government’s eyes.
Maybe while they chase copyrighted content providers, and some other country shuts down our internet.
They’ll get it.
Maybe our government should help stop the dns attacks on Verizon’s backbone in NYC.
Or help protect the power grid of the eastern seaboard.
These are real issues we need to work on not some rich mans penny profit for a picture on facebook(future big brother).

mcfeth

fighting the fight
Steve Moyer

“piracy of content costs the original producers/distributors tens of billions of dollars”

So they claim … I’m also against piracy and as a software vendor, my livelihood depends upon paying customers. But my experience is that most of those who are pirating IP can’t or wouldn’t pay for it. In any case, this law is wrong on many levels.

Thanks for fighting!
Jérôme Cadet

The online petition doesn’t seem to work on the whitehouse site, I created an accoun successfully but I also get an error when trying to sign in from the petition page, and using their search engine won’t let me find it again…
Jérôme Cadet

Whenever I try to sign the petition after login with the account I had to create on the white house site (it has been successfully validated) I get a 404 error… ?

Gloonie

I get the same thing. I can logon but then get the error….

Peter Nalyvayko

I feel the discussion about potential consequences of the proposed law has become more about conspiracy theories (read the section ‘What we are opposed to it), than about the subject matter. The government, even without this law, has a tremendous ability to bully anyone into submission so the problem is not this particular law, but the copyright and patent laws (remenber the Amazon’s ’one-click’ purchase?) this legislation aims to provide a further protection without even crossing the national boundaries.
John Bradley, Jabtech

I fully support the implementation of SOPA. There are many companies that operate outside of the borders of the US with the sole purpose of circumventing the law. While copyright infringements are a major concern, the theft of personal information and fraud are too. Why not put up a firewall, we all do on our own personal computers to keep others out. The risk to freedom of speech is minimal, and with all the misinformation on the web, I would like there to be more censorship, however that will not be accomplished buy SOPA. The purpose of SOPA is to prevent those who hide from prosecution in other jurisdictions from committing crimes here.

Scott Marcott

If “We” all put up a firewall then there is no need for a government one. Additionally If you feel there needs to be more censorship then by all means, don’t reply or post to something like this. (It’s a joke if you missed it. aka Censor yourself)

Wolfgang

Bypassing the judicial system, giving executive branch free rain where US corporations drive and lobby their interests, essentially extending US jurisdiction on the entire world wide web – this is not what the Internet is supposed to be!

http://amygrindhouse.com/ Amy Grindhouse

That’s how I read the legislation too, in a nutshell. It’s a thinly-veiled, vaguely-worded censorship bill.

Marco Barrera

We think that this law goes beyond U.S. borders, as mentioned, there are other ways to stop piracy. We are with you.
Internet wants to be free

Of course this won’t be used just to take down sites with pirated content. Imagine the US government had this when the Wikileaks Scandal burst, of course the material would be considered copyrighted (in some way). It would have been easier to ask the big companies to stop servicing Wikileaks than using veiled threats and behind the curtains pressure, like they had to do.
Guest

The thing that gets me in all of this, what about the sites that exist in the US itself that host copyrighted material illegally, and don’t say it doesn’t happen. Its just as big a problem there as anywhere else.

What will happen then? A blind eye turned on it so it doesn’t get shutdown because it had something to do with a big wig’s website?

Government, and the US’s is no exception, all support the definition of hypocrisy to the letter.
Citiwireless1

I just wish everyone had sense enough to realize that anytime our government gets involved— well its just stupid! Sign and let them know some of us out here do still have a brain and we actually use it. Besides that, any of you who actually think that our government could really run something right and for the intended purposes is crazy. There will always be a “gotcha” in there somewhere when dealing with our government.
G_camerlingo

I’m sorry for this bill, but I can not sign the petition I’m not an US citizen
Fedupwithidiots

Anyone who supports this SOPA Bill should be permanently banned from anything technological and shoved into a dark cave for the rest of their lives.
Brent

What all you nerdy faggots should be suggesting instead of crying wolf about ‘what can you do?’ is STOP PIRATING!! Fuck your petition. Stop blantant piracy behind your blanket of freedom of speech and the government would have no (legit) reason for passing this bill.
Sennekuyl

Is there an alternative to aavaz.org? There are some concerns wrt spam raised that haven’t been addressed as far as I can tell.
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_MZPNJRO2UOFJXESU46HUBAS2LY Jana

I was just looking for this service. I will take your service immediately.
Thanks
Jana Shobnom

Bankruptcy Lawyers Chicago, Bankruptcy Attorney Chicago
Ross S.

SOPA is unconstitutional, lets not put corporate profits in front of freedom ONCE AGAIN IN THIS COUNTRY!
Ramontellez2012

YES. ALL ITS OPPOSED TO IT (SOPA ITS SHIT)
Ecatyapojo

I like E-Parasite Act, what is the problem with the Offshore??
Call_Me_if_you_want

Hi everybody,
Where is Texas, I am in EU.
Just to say that every country have its own rules.
If in that country there is any content that Texas Law doesn’t like, but in the country is allowed by law???
Should more than Texas Law, should be an “International Website Content Law” to prohibit any website content around the world.
Djjakey

spacerp.dyndns.biz
Casbury67

Support the right to free speech, after all isn’t it the US that claim “Freedom of speech” is one of there most cherished rights, and now they are trying to bring out a new law to stop the spread of free information via the internet in the form of (SOPA is short for the “Stop Online Piracy Act,” and PIPA is an acronym for the “Protect IP Act.” (“IP” stands for “intellectual property.”) ) cop out if you ask me, WTF US get your noses out each others asses and get a life, with out freedom of speech what will be the point of the information highway ?????
Anonymous

We defiantly need to fight this legislation. It’s just
wrong to censor the Internet. Think about it, it’s was ground breaking American
ingenuity and has changed everything.

By 2012, an estimated 50 billion devices will join the
net…today’s world population is 7 billion. You do the math. What is being added to the mix are
cars, appliances, radios, phones, etc. taking to each other via the super
high-speed backbone. Expect to speak to
most devices and have them to listen, interpret, and perform.

Now, image having to clear this through Uncle Sam? That would halt Moore’s Law, innovation, and kill our economy. Keep America Free!

SOPA: What You Should Know & Why Dyn Opposes It

What Is SOPA?

Why We’re Opposed To It

What Can You Do?

Enjoyed this post? Share It!