Poll: How many of you have actually read the SOPA bill?

[Sarge034]

I have been hearing about the SOPA bill for a while how and finally decided to see what all the fuss was about. I read the ENTIRE THING (it was soooooooo long...) and I expected to see things that would give the government the right to take down sites at its leisure. Instead the only thing I could find like that was a section that provides amnesty to internet providers that take preemptive actions against a site by themselves without oversight, but I'm getting ahead of myself.

I believe pirating (or whatever name you use to describe it) to be wrong UNLESS there is no other option, and I'm not talking about monetary obstacles. I'm talking about games that are not licensed to be produced so you can't get them legally.

From what I read in the bill the Attorney General has to file with the courts, the courts would consider the evidence much like they would for a search warrant, if the courts found there was enough evidence they would issue an injunction like order, and then the parties involved have five days to comply. The domain would initially have to do their best to block access to users in the US. The domain could then do one of three things within the five day grace period.

1) It could continue to allow the copyrighted material to remain on the site, continue to block access to US users, and face the normal charges for the illegal use of copyrighted material.

2) It could remove the copyrighted material from the site, allow access to US users, and pray to the internet gods that charges are not brought against them.

3) It could give the court the middle finger (or applicable gesture depending on where you live), allow access to US users, continue to allow the copyrighted material to remain on the site, get blocked by every internet provider wishing to continue to function in the US, face the normal charges for the illegal use of copyrighted material, and face charges for not heeding the cease and desist order.

From what I read it is not even remotely close to the "interwebs is gonna die" legislation that I have been hearing about. Unless, of course, you are a pirate. The issue I have is that there is a section that grants amnesty to those internet providers that block sites on their own. There is no official oversight from the Attorney General, the courts, or the cyber-division that is being formed to investigate sites. So internet providers could, in theory, block sites that don't follow their mentality or their particular "party line" using this provision.

Please read it for yourself and state your interpretations in this thread. I'm curious to see if people's position change or not.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.3261:

Please keep it civil and actually discuss why you feel the way you do. Who knows, you might change my mind or see something I don't.

 

[SyphonX]

Never heard the term 'slippery slope'? Absolute power corrupts absolutely..

Let me ask you this, what benefit does SOPA have for any average citizen? The American track record (lately), is that any broad, sweeping legislation is to be misused and outright abused. (PATRIOT Act anyone?) I find it difficult to reason with anyone who doesn't immediately see an outright dilemma with something like SOPA.

Also, it's pretty clear you are trying to bait and troll with your, "unless you're a pirate obviously". It's the same thing as "What do you have to hide?"

 

[shimyia]

I believe pirating (or whatever name you use to describe it) to be wrong UNLESS there is no other option, and I'm not talking about monetary obstacles. I'm talking about games that are not licensed to be produced so you can't get them legally.

damn right son

guess where i live, even if i would tell u, not many people will know where is it situated.
There are only pirated shops in this coutry and no option to buy a console or a legit video-game.

so instead of supporting piracy by buying their products, i pirate them online and that makes more sense and does less damage. If SOPA actually does stop piracy, then i wouldn't be able to be part of the gaming comunity and that sorta screwes me over because im a game lover like everyone on this site.

 

[KingofallCosmos]

I'm sorry I don't speak legal connerie.

 

[Taerdin]

I haven't actually heard anyone stand against SOPA because it hurts pirates. Most outlets are concerned that things like reviews or parodies which are covered under fair use can be targeted by SOPA as 'copyright infringement'. Thus web shows we like, and enthusiast blogs could be shut down based on some screenshots they post or review they make if the copyright holder claims infringement.

I'm not going to read the bill, I'm not American and I'm not a vocal opposer to SOPA by any means. It just seems to me that you completely misunderstand or are intentionally ignorant to the actual stance against SOPA.

 

[Faladorian]

I like the third option [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman_fallacy].

 

[Whateveralot]

See: this [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhwuXNv8fJM&list=FL_ufxdQbKBrrMOiZ4LzrUyA&feature=plcp] first, please.

It's not so much their response to websites that offer copyrighted material that worries me. It's their definition of copyrighted material to begin with, that worries me. Next to the fact that it allows the government to take down nearly any bit of internet they like. It's pretty damn broad and it will affect many people, regardless of what you, OP, think it does.

This, during a time where government corruption and censorship are increasing day by day, still manages to past the public unnoticed because of this very same censorship. Call this a theory, but the fact that this has gotten NO attention whatsoever anywhere beyond the internet is disgusting. Lawmakers should not be making laws that affect so many people without direct approval of the majority of the people. We live a democracy, but the people in the government are all the same; deluded into justifying their hunger for power by all means.

They would do anything to regulate the people. SOPA proves it. PIPA proves it. NDAA proves it (by the way: the approval of this bill was also largely unmentioned in the media). Wikileaks has uncovered beyond inconceivable amounts of proof of this. A lot of things are "for the greater good"; but corruption, intimidation and regulation of population have never, ever been a good thing. America has slowly become a false democracy, where the president you elect does not change the outcome.

Might I add the following:
Obama vowed to veto against theNDAA bill [http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/2012/01/04/promises-promises-president-obamas-ndaa-signing-statement/], but hasn't kept to his promises on that one. Ouch.

 

[ediblemitten]

I haven't actually heard anyone stand against SOPA because it hurts pirates. Most outlets are concerned that things like reviews or parodies which are covered under fair use can be targeted by SOPA as 'copyright infringement'. Thus web shows we like, and enthusiast blogs could be shut down based on some screenshots they post or review they make if the copyright holder claims infringement.

I'm not going to read the bill, I'm not American and I'm not a vocal opposer to SOPA by any means. It just seems to me that you completely misunderstand or are intentionally ignorant to the actual stance against SOPA.

I'm not American either, but I have in fact read it, simply to get a better understanding of people's problems with the bill. You express your issues and other's issues with the bill, and then admit you haven't even read it, and then accuse the OP of being ignorant? He read the bloody thing at least!

 

[lionsprey]

Could someone point out what section would allow them to shut down american websites?
all i have seen so far is stuff that would make them deny US citizens their access i thought i read somewhere they must remove the material but i can't seem to find it now.

 

[Baron von Blitztank]

Bah, reading is for the weak. I've heard of the effects, it gives me something to hate and that's enough for me.
Go my angry mob! Burn the SOPA to the ground where it stands! LEAVE NOTHING FOR THE WIND TO CARRY!

 

[Alex Tom]

this is prob very naive but am i the only one that saw the NDAA bill and dident shout conspiracy? I read on the news a Al Qaeda priest was killed in a drone attack and the issue was that he was an America and was it legal for the president to order a drone to assassinate him. I understand the concern and support them but im not worried an American solderer will one day get bored and go on a shooting spree and get away scott free.

OT: I agree with Sarge034 that while i understand people not liking SOPA i dont see a problem. all ive been hearing is STOP SOPA BECAUSE THE INTERNET!

Perhaps im missing something. if someone can quote or show an example then please show me.

 

[googleboy]

From what I read in the bill the Attorney General has to file with the courts, the courts would consider the evidence much like they would for a search warrant, if the courts found there was enough evidence they would issue an injunction like order, and then the parties involved have five days to comply. The domain would initially have to do their best to block access to users in the US. The domain could then do one of three things within the five day grace period.

From what I read it is not even remotely close to the "interwebs is gonna die" legislation that I have been hearing about. Unless, of course, you are a pirate. The issue I have is that there is a section that grants amnesty to those internet providers that block sites on their own. There is no official oversight from the Attorney General, the courts, or the cyber-division that is being formed to investigate sites. So internet providers could, in theory, block sites that don't follow their mentality or their particular "party line" using this provision.

I have read the bill, but more importantly I have also read the Patriot Act and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The problems with SOPA lie entirely with its mealy mouthed wording. When used in conjunction with the PA and DMCA, SOPA represents an incredible addition of new 'rights' for the governments police power. The DoHS in the US already has the power to unilaterally close down any domain which it finds to violate its criteria which are not subject to legislative review, only judicial. Throw in SOPA's authorization for IP tracking and DMCA's ability to correlate IP and customer data and you have a really nasty ball game.

The problem isn't so much SOPA directly as it is all the other legion of laws that it will be tied to once it is in the US Code. The results will be very, very ugly. This is sort of the reverse problem with the NDAA which said that the military could indefinitely detain people at will on suspicion of terrorism. In reality, the 1971 Non-Detention Act prevents this, and once NDAA is law, it will be shackled with the restrictions it lays out. The problem being that the Patriot Act has a clause stripping the Non-Detention Act of its power.

Anyway, sorry to ramble. THe problem with SOPA is that it was written by spineless, gutless, useless government lawyers and politicians who apply band-aids to things rather than actually addressing problems by purging old law and redrafting new law to suit the times.

 

[Hitchmeister]

My fear is not that this bill will destroy the internet, but this sort of over-reaching, ham-fisted, ill-conceived bill will after and initial period of annoying and inconveniencing a very large number of people will get challenged by very highly trained, extremely expensive lawyers who after millions and millions of dollars in legal battles, will expose it for exactly the sort of poorly written, unenforceable legislation that it is. Meaning that the actual long-term effects of it will amount to bugger-all, but cost American taxpayers, and the companies that eventually fight the law, a fortune. Of course, those companies will just turn around and recover their losses by raising the prices they charge those same taxpayers for their goods and services, so we get the privilege of having our money wasted on both sides of a legal battle over a bill that does no good at all for anyone.

 

[Taerdin]

*snip*

Well maybe you should reread the bill, because I'm sure it's much longer than my post and your reading comprehension of my post was a pathetic failure at best.

You express your issues and other's issues with the bill

MY issues? You mean the part where I said...

Most outlets are concerned that things like reviews or parodies which are covered under fair use can be targeted by SOPA...

I am not an outlet, when I said most outlets I didn't mean me, I meant others. I have read the positions of other people who are opposing it online and merely trying to inform the OP that he is off the mark in terms of the message of the opposition.

I even said in my post that I am not someone who voices an opposition to SOPA.

I'm not a vocal opposer to SOPA by any means

Secondly...

then accuse the OP of being ignorant? He read the bloody thing at least!

The issue I raised has nothing to do with reading the bill. It has to do with actually reading the position of the people who oppose the bill, which is what the OP is challenging in this thread. You don't have to read the bill to understand the position of the opposition to the bill. So yes the OP is ignorant for not reading or understanding the actually position people who oppose the bill are taking, and I don't need to read the bill to understand their stance.

I didn't try to justify their stance, nor tell the OP that they're right, simply that he is ignorant of what their main argument actually is.

You cant properly argue against something when you dont even know what it is.

I agree completely. That's why I met the OP's argument by informing him that he doesn't even know what the opposition to the SOPA bill is arguing, considering how he framed his post.

 

[ediblemitten]

*snip*

Well maybe you should reread the bill, because I'm sure it's much longer than my post and your reading comprehension of my post was a pathetic failure at best.

You express your issues and other's issues with the bill

MY issues? You mean the part where I said...

Most outlets are concerned that things like reviews or parodies which are covered under fair use can be targeted by SOPA...

I am not an outlet, when I said most outlets I didn't mean me, I meant others. I have read the positions of other people who are opposing it online and merely trying to inform the OP that he is off the mark in terms of the message of the opposition.

I even said in my post that I am not someone who voices an opposition to SOPA.

I'm not a vocal opposer to SOPA by any means

Secondly...

then accuse the OP of being ignorant? He read the bloody thing at least!

The issue I raised has nothing to do with reading the bill. It has to do with actually reading the position of the people who oppose the bill, which is what the OP is challenging in this thread. You don't have to read the bill to understand the position of the opposition to the bill. So yes the OP is ignorant for not reading or understanding the actually position people who oppose the bill are taking, and I don't need to read the bill to understand their stance.

I didn't try to justify their stance, nor tell the OP that they're right, simply that he is ignorant of what their main argument actually is.

You cant properly argue against something when you dont even know what it is.

I agree completely. That's why I met the OP's argument by informing him that he doesn't even know what the opposition to the SOPA bill is arguing, considering how he framed his post.

"Thus web shows we like". Connecting yourself to opposition to the bill. Understand now why I would be under the impression you disproved of SOPA? You just expressed the idea that SOPA would negatively affect your interests, and, whether you like to admit it or not, you do in fact oppose it.

Also, notice that the OP never once says that anyone stands against SOPA OFFICIALLY or PUBLICLY because they would no longer be able to effectively pirate. Remember, you specifcally stated: "I haven't actually heard anyone stand against SOPA because it hurts pirates". I don't know how many people that oppose it do so because they enjoy the benefits of pirated software, probably many, but none would ever admit (especially not any reputable organization) that they dislike the bill because of pirating. That would horribly undermine any argument made against SOPA by such an organization.

Maybe your reading comprehension should improve.

"You don't have to read the bill to understand the position of the opposition to the bill."

Actually, you do. If you don't, you have no basis for understanding the points being made, and no tools to argue for or against them. You're taking their arguments at face value, bias and all, and have no clue if what your being told is interest group garbage or a legitimate position backed up by facts and passages from the legislation in question.

 

[ObsessiveSketch]

I'll admit I haven't actually read the whole bill through, but I trust that Google, Facebook, Twitter, and the litany of other tech experts (and their lawyers) who are objecting to the bill have read it.

Even if OP is right, and there isn't any honest-to-God apocalypse clause in the bill, then I still say it pressures legitimate websites to forcibly censor their users for fear of ANY potential legal backlash.

I haven't read the paperwork, but just from all the stories, opinions, arguments, and analyses I've read over the past month I'm much more likely to side against SOPA. The entertainment industry has previously proven to be stubborn and irrationally draconian when presented with new tech that threatens their business model; I think SOPA and PIPA are the wrong way to go about dealing with piracy. The OPEN act is a better alternative, but it's not getting much traction.

"You don't have to read the bill to understand the position of the opposition to the bill."

Actually, you do. If you don't, you have no basis for understanding the points being made, and no tools to argue for or against them. You're taking their arguments at face value, bias and all, and have no clue if what your being told is interest group garbage or a legitimate position backed up by facts and passages from the legislation in question.

I agree that an informed populace is the only way to get an honest debate going, but how many people on this site, let alone in the US, know the subtleties of legal documents and jargon enough to get a clear position from reading the bill's actual text? It seems a word-for-word layman's translation needs to be done by a non-biased party. Any takers?

 

[ediblemitten]

I'll admit I haven't actually read the whole bill through, but I trust that Google, Facebook, Twitter, and the litany of other tech experts (and their lawyers) who are objecting to the bill have read it.

Even if OP is right, and there isn't any honest-to-God apocalypse clause in the bill, then I still say it pressures legitimate websites to forcibly censor their users for fear of ANY potential legal backlash.

I haven't read the paperwork, but just from all the stories, opinions, arguments, and analyses I've read over the past month I'm much more likely to side against SOPA. The entertainment industry has previously proven to be stubborn and irrationally draconian when presented with new tech that threatens their business model; I think SOPA and PIPA are the wrong way to go about dealing with piracy. The OPEN act is a better alternative, but it's not getting much traction.

"You don't have to read the bill to understand the position of the opposition to the bill."

Actually, you do. If you don't, you have no basis for understanding the points being made, and no tools to argue for or against them. You're taking their arguments at face value, bias and all, and have no clue if what your being told is interest group garbage or a legitimate position backed up by facts and passages from the legislation in question.

I agree that an informed populace is the only way to get an honest debate going, but how many people on this site, let alone in the US, know the subtleties of legal documents and jargon enough to get a clear position from reading the bill's actual text? It seems a word-for-word layman's translation needs to be done by a non-biased party. Any takers?

The legalese is pretty bad, but not to much to handle, to be honest. I think if someone really wanted to know how the bill worked, it wouldn't take to long to get a reasonable understanding. The only issues I can see would be the Latin terms floating around and references to the U.S legal code.

 

[Logodaedalus]

To answer the question in the poll, no I didn't read the bill mostly because I don't have a law degree and didn't expect to understand a word of it in its raw form. What I think of the bill mostly comes from TB's video and the Techdirt article he linked, since that actually had things fairly neatly laid out in a way I could easily understand. But since you linked it in you're post I thought I might as well have a look.

Here's what I found;

(1) DEDICATED TO THEFT OF U.S. PROPERTY- An `Internet site is dedicated to theft of U.S. property' if--
(A) it is an Internet site, or a portion thereof, that is a U.S.-directed site and is used by users within the United States; and
(B) either--
(i) the U.S.-directed site is primarily designed or operated for the purpose of, has only limited purpose or use other than, or is marketed by its operator or another acting in concert with that operator for use in, offering goods or services in a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates--
(I) a violation of section 501 of title 17, United States Code;
(II) a violation of section 1201 of title 17, United States Code; or
(III) the sale, distribution, or promotion of goods, services, or materials bearing a counterfeit mark, as that term is defined in section 34(d) of the Lanham Act or section 2320 of title 18, United States Code; or
(ii) the operator of the U.S.-directed site--
(I) is taking, or has taken, deliberate actions to avoid confirming a high probability of the use of the U.S.-directed site to carry out acts that constitute a violation of section 501 or 1201 of title 17, United States Code; or
(II) operates the U.S.-directed site with the object of promoting, or has promoted, its use to carry out acts that constitute a violation of section 501 or 1201 of title 17, United States Code, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement.

"Enables, or facilitates" is the bit that people are getting really worried about (at least for my understanding). This means that if you post an image on a forum or something of that ilk the copyright holder can't just demand the removal of that image but also the removal of the system that enabled, or facilitated the infringement; the entire forum.

As for why a company would do such things, think of how much of a market dominance big companies can achieve if they can strangle any outlet for new independent products. Any outlet that lets people post content freely like that would almost certainly fall under the "enables, or facilitates" clause.

Then there's the issue of the risk it poses for new starting up internet businesses. The amount of danger this bill poses to any starting up business involving social media would be enough to force most US businesses to move abroad to avoid a legal shit-storm that would be throw at them be companies stifling competition.

But as I said, I'm not a lawyer so I might be wrong but from what I can see it seems like a pretty badly worded piece of legislation.

 

[Taerdin]

"Thus web shows we like". Connecting yourself to opposition to the bill.

This makes no sense. Just because other people oppose the bill because it might effect their web shows doesn't mean I'm connected to their opposition of the bill if I like their shows. Please think for a moment if this doesn't immediately make sense to you.

whether you like to admit it or not, you do in fact oppose it.

I'm not a fan of it, but I don't speak out against it. Nor have I written any letters, nor do I even live in the country where it is being passed.

Also, notice that the OP never once says that anyone stands against SOPA OFFICIALLY or PUBLICLY because they would no longer be able to effectively pirate.

From what I read it is not even remotely close to the "interwebs is gonna die" legislation that I have been hearing about. Unless, of course, you are a pirate.

Hmm..

Remember, you specifcally stated: "I haven't actually heard anyone stand against SOPA because it hurts pirates". I don't know how many people that oppose it do so because they enjoy the benefits of pirated software, probably many, but none would ever admit (especially not any reputable organization) that they dislike the bill because of pirating. That would horribly undermine any argument made against SOPA by such an organization.

Okay but the outlets that I'm talking about who are against SOPA specifically say that they are no fan of piracy, but merely find the bill to be too broad or set a bad precedent. I don't necessarily agree or share that stance with them.

Maybe your reading comprehension should improve.

Maybe. But you still can't even understand my simple posts and are making up the statements that you want to hear in your brain instead of listening to me. If you actually comprehended what I was saying then I wouldn't have to clarify my meaning to you... twice.

If you still need help comprehending feel free to PM me, there's no need for me to take up so much room in this thread helping you understand.

"You don't have to read the bill to understand the position of the opposition to the bill."

Actually, you do. If you don't, you have no basis for understanding the points being made, and no tools to argue for or against them. You're taking their arguments at face value, bias and all, and have no clue if what your being told is interest group garbage or a legitimate position backed up by facts and passages from the legislation in question.

Actually you don't. I'm not arguing for or against anything, and that is absolutely not what I said at all. I'm not taking their stance as fact or the truth or my belief, I'm simply relaying what they seem to be saying to the OP, who seems to not even understand what they are saying is their position in the first place.

I don't need to know what a watermelon is to understand that a person doesn't like it because of the seeds, nor do I need to know what one is to let someone else know that they don't like it because of the seeds. Knowledge of a watermelon is not the same as knowledge of a person's opinion of watermelons. Sorry I had to resort to an analogy but I thought it might help you understand.