dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
2150
share rss forum feed


BronsCon

join:2003-10-24
Walnut Creek, CA
Reviews:
·Comcast Business..
·SONIC.NET

SOPA Protest/Awareness Event

I'm working on organizing a 1 day SOPA Protest/Awareness event and, right now, I'm feeling around to determine what kind of interest there is in participating in such an event.

The event would entail site owners taking their sites down for a day and replacing them with a page detailing what SOPA is, why it needs to be stopped, and what the average person can do about it. The goal is to get as many sites on board as possible, to shock people into realizing what will happen to the internet if SOPA passes (all their favorite sites are offline because of SOPA? NO! Can't let THAT happen!) to get them to act immediately.

I don't want to announce the URL publicly until I know there's interest. Once a few people post here in support of the idea (whether you're up for it as I've implemented or not -- which, of course, you can't know until I post the URL), I'll post the URL. I don't want it getting out there at the moment, while the supporters list is empty and pathetic :P

Note: Indicating interest here will not get you added to the supporters list. I only intend to add sites which email to pledge support; and then, only after writing back to confirm.

So, anyone interested?


howardfine

join:2002-08-09
Saint Louis, MO
Reviews:
·AT&T Southwest

2 edits
First thing that needs to be done is simply explaining what SOPA is. I'm in the business and I still don't understand it. Admittedly I just don't have time to pay attention but I'm not sure where the line is between those who are trying to protect businesses from pirating and those who just want everything to be free.

EDIT: A brief look at Wikipedia gives me the impression the only people affected would be those outside the US. That probably explains why the only people I see complaining are them. My impression is they want to do as they wish with copyrighted material without paying for it and without consequences. That is wrong. Or am I mis-reading something?


trparky
Apple... YUM
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:2
You should see GoDaddy's Twitter Feed, you can tell they are in some serious amounts of damage control.


ProtusMose
Immortal. Eternal.
Premium
join:2001-10-03
Bellevue, NE
kudos:4
Godaddy is taking a lot of heat for their SOPA support. Tens of thousands of domain transfers in the last week, if not hundreds.


BronsCon

join:2003-10-24
Walnut Creek, CA
Reviews:
·Comcast Business..
·SONIC.NET
reply to howardfine
Here's one main problem; people outside the US aren't under US jurisdiction. Why should US law affect them?

Once you've answered that (HINT: it shouldn't, just as laws of every other country in the world shouldn't, and don't , affect us here in the US), visit every single website you frequent and find out where they're hosted.

Once you've done that, browse each of those sites which are not hosted in the US and look for any and all copyrighted materials and links to copyrighted materials, whether they're content posted by the site owner or in forums/comments posted by users. Find any? That site will be blocked in the US if SOPA passes.

That's right, just linking to a site that hosts (purposely or through user posts and comments) copyrighted materials is enough. Hell, DSLR allows user content, there are threads here all the time with links to YouTube, YouTube hosts user content, much of which violates copyright. Follow the logic there, then find another forum to discuss your web stuff; this one's gone. Uhm... Most forums are like this one, in that respect, so, good luck.

How would SOPA affect anyone outside the US? Unless US-based sites are shut down, it won't; it can't, otherwise. If SOPA passes, ISPs in the US would be forced to remove DNS records for infringing sites; if those sites are hosted outside the US, they'll still be available everywhere else. Of course, if those sites are hosted in the US (it was one senator's comment saying that .com, .net, and .org would not be targeted, there is no language in the bill indicating this -- but, politicians never lie to push their agendas, right?), that site is, effectively, offline worldwide.

In both scenarios (non-US site with DNS dropped by US providers, US site with DNS dropped by US providers) the site is unavailable in the US. In the former, it's still available everywhere else; in the latter, it is not available anywhere.

How does SOPA, a proposed US law, only affect people outside the US?

Read the bill, not just Wikipedia (which SOPA proponents can also edit, remember).

»www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3261/text

Edit: Typo (types IPSs instead of ISPs)


howardfine

join:2002-08-09
Saint Louis, MO
Reviews:
·AT&T Southwest
said by BronsCon:

Here's one main problem; people outside the US aren't under US jurisdiction. Why should US law affect them?

Copyright infringement is international, not just in the US. A French company can sue you if you try and copy/sell a French writer's book. Products cannot be sold in other countries due to that country's laws. The French have (or at least had) strict requirements on documentation, for example, that had to be in French or you could not sell your product there. Some countries block web sites already due to their local laws.
quote:
look for any and all copyrighted materials and links to copyrighted materials, whether they're content posted by the site owner or in forums/comments posted by users. Find any? That site will be blocked in the US if SOPA passes.
So, to avoid confusing me, are you saying it's OK to copy material and use it on your site without paying for it?
quote:
there are threads here all the time with links to YouTube, YouTube hosts user content, much of which violates copyright.
I'm not sure that links would be disallowed, and I'd disagree that they should be disallowed. But does SOPA disallow links?
quote:
Follow the logic there, then find another forum to discuss your web stuff; this one's gone.
SOPA disallows discussion of a web site?
quote:

How would SOPA affect anyone outside the US? Unless US-based sites are shut down, it won't
From what I've read, I thought it says it blocks outside sites. I assumed because internal companies can be sued easier in US court.
quote:
Read the bill, not just Wikipedia (which SOPA proponents can also edit, remember).

»www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3261/text

The bill is shorter than I thought it would be but I'm slammed right now. Maybe tomorrow.

What I still seem to read is this. People don't want sites that copy copyrighted material to be blocked. But such activity is illegal all over the world and has been for centuries. I can't believe anyone would support this illegal copying and distribution so I guess I'm still missing something.


howardfine

join:2002-08-09
Saint Louis, MO
Reviews:
·AT&T Southwest

4 edits
reply to BronsCon
So I'm having trouble following along with that bill though I'm rushing through it. It seems to me, according to Section 103, they want to act against sites that are:
quote:
offering goods or services in a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates --

1) selling or distributing copyrighted computer software and other technology

2) circumventing copyright laws

3) the sale, distribution, or promotion of goods, services, or materials bearing a counterfeit mark.

Why is this a bad thing?

EDIT: So far, I've seen nothing to indicate linking to copyrighted material is forbidden.

OZO
Premium
join:2003-01-17
kudos:2
You may want to look at current discussion about SOPA in our own forum first:
Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) Vote Delayed.
There you may find examples how the act will affect common people.

Read particularly about the potential of blocking US users from buying drugs from Canada. Why do they buy needed drugs from Canada now? They can not afford over-inflated prices offered here, in the US, by drug and insurance companies. In Canada people can buy those drugs for far more affordable prices. The act will require to block the access to those stores. And it's not only blocking DNS records, censoring results provided by search engines, removing links from any forums, etc. It's also by blocking credit card transactions when one wants to pay for those drugs. It's a typical protectionism, making local drug prices extremely high (over-inflated). The act will facilitate that money extortion practice by local drug cartel even more... (if it sounds not convincing yet - such protectionism is simply against market) And it's just one example of why some big businesses want that bill so badly.

SOPA bill is not about an online piracy (as "Patriot Act" is not about patriotism in any way, while it just sounds like), it's about introducing new Internet censorship and creating environment for special interests, who lobby (pay legislators for) the bill.
--
Keep it simple, it'll become complex by itself...


howardfine

join:2002-08-09
Saint Louis, MO
I don't read any of that in the bill. Drugs in Canada, if they are the same thing, would not come under this. If they are copies of the same drug, meaning they are illegally manufactured, that's a different story.


BronsCon

join:2003-10-24
Walnut Creek, CA
Reviews:
·Comcast Business..
·SONIC.NET
reply to howardfine
Where did I say it was OK to copy material and use it on your own site? Nowhere. However, there is a defense to infringement, called Fair Use, which SOPA does not account for. Further, yes, linking to a site which contained infringing content would be illegal under SOPA. Further, user-contributed content (such as comments and forum posts) would be considered as part of the site and, if it contained infringing content, would possibly get a site shut down or blocked under SOPA.

That leads me to my reference to this forum shutting down. Go back and read, again, where I mention the numerous threads in these forums which link to, or display, videos from YouTube. Since YouTube would be, under SOPA, considered an infringing site, and this site links to it, well... Goodbye, DSLR. Thus why I suggested you find another forum.

At no point did I stand up and say "YAY! GO PIRACY, WOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO COPY WHATEVER WE WANT AND USE IT ON OUR SITES!!!!!!!". What I did try to point out is that SOPA is way too far-reaching and dangerous; I tried to do that by pointing out to you exactly what SOPA would to to a forum on which you post.

You missed the message; thus the need for the awareness event I'm trying to organize.


BronsCon

join:2003-10-24
Walnut Creek, CA
Reviews:
·Comcast Business..
·SONIC.NET
reply to howardfine
said by howardfine:

I don't read any of that in the bill. Drugs in Canada, if they are the same thing, would not come under this. If they are copies of the same drug, meaning they are illegally manufactured, that's a different story.

Most drugs are patented in the US. Buying from a Canadian company that is not restricted by US patents circumvents those patents; not that the US drug companies can claim a lost sale when the buyer is buying from Canada because they can't afford to buy from the US source. At any rate, the sale of a patented drug, in the US, manufactured by someone other than the patent holder or their licensee, is considered sale and distribution of goods bearing a counterfeit mark. The promotional materials on a website selling such drugs would be considered to be promoting goods bearing a counterfeit mark.

Oops.


BronsCon

join:2003-10-24
Walnut Creek, CA
Reviews:
·Comcast Business..
·SONIC.NET
reply to howardfine
said by howardfine:

Copyright infringement is international, not just in the US. A French company can sue you if you try and copy/sell a French writer's book. Products cannot be sold in other countries due to that country's laws. The French have (or at least had) strict requirements on documentation, for example, that had to be in French or you could not sell your product there. Some countries block web sites already due to their local laws.

I forgot to address this earlier.

Are you telling me you want to be in one of those countries? Keep in mind that we're talking about sites like YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, MySpace (ok, that one makes me want to support SOPA, just a little bit), and pretty much any other site which allows the posting of user content, such as DSLR.

This doesn't just specifically target websites intent on piracy. This targets even the smallest "innocent" infringement; for example, a 10 second clip from a movie, posted to YouTube. Surely that 10 second clip isn't going to stop someone who otherwise would have watched that movie from watching it; quite the opposite, if it's funny or interesting enough, it might encourage someone who would not have seen it to go do so.

But, I digress, some people live in a black and white world; that user didn't create that clip, why should they be allowed to post it?


howardfine

join:2002-08-09
Saint Louis, MO
Reviews:
·AT&T Southwest
reply to BronsCon
said by BronsCon:

Where did I say it was OK to copy material and use it on your own site? Nowhere.


You were complaining about it so I asked for the clarification.
quote:
However, there is a defense to infringement, called Fair Use, which SOPA does not account for.
Yes it does. Fair use is part of copyright law and the bill specifically states it is supported by copyright law and, therefore, fair use provisions.
quote:
Further, yes, linking to a site which contained infringing content would be illegal under SOPA. Further, user-contributed content (such as comments and forum posts) would be considered as part of the site and, if it contained infringing content, would possibly get a site shut down or blocked under SOPA.
But there you have to consider a number of variables such as it's legal to quote statements, paragraphs and so on from copyright material in part. I'm sure money changing hands comes into play in all this, too. iow, it's one thing to copy a paragraph from a forum and it's another to copy a whole book from a web site.
quote:
where I mention the numerous threads in these forums which link to, or display, videos from YouTube. Since YouTube would be, under SOPA, considered an infringing site, and this site links to it, well... Goodbye, DSLR.
Displaying the content is one thing. Linking to it is another. Links are NOT illegal under SOPA.
quote:
What I did try to point out is that SOPA is way too far-reaching and dangerous.
SOPA is just applying the same current copyright laws to the internet. It does not create anything that doesn't already apply to books, movies, and music. That's why the first two lines of the description in the act reference those laws and does not do much more than supply definitions.
quote:
You missed the message;

I don't think I have and no one yet has been able to show me I'm wrong.


howardfine

join:2002-08-09
Saint Louis, MO
Reviews:
·AT&T Southwest
reply to BronsCon
said by BronsCon:

Most drugs are patented in the US. Buying from a Canadian company that is not restricted by US patents circumvents those patents


You think the US patents don't have any force of effect in Canada? You think those "legal online pharmacies" in Canada are not selling the same drugs by the same manufacturers? SOPA does not affect vendors selling Bayer aspirin cheaper in Canada vs Bayer aspirin in the US.

quote:
not that the US drug companies can claim a lost sale when the buyer is buying from Canada because they can't afford to buy from the US source.
That's the point.
quote:
At any rate, the sale of a patented drug, in the US, manufactured by someone other than the patent holder or their licensee, is considered sale and distribution of goods bearing a counterfeit mark. The promotional materials on a website selling such drugs would be considered to be promoting goods bearing a counterfeit mark.

Oops.

Exactly! That's what SOPA's for!


BronsCon

join:2003-10-24
Walnut Creek, CA
Reviews:
·Comcast Business..
·SONIC.NET
reply to howardfine
Fair use is not a part of copyright law, it is a defense to violation of copyright law. It is applied after the fact. Since there is no mechanism by which to appeal a SOPA takedown, it can not account for a fair use defense. There is no defense to a SOPA takedown, period.

Further, yes, there's a difference between quoting a paragraph from a book and copying the whole book. I think we're all aware of this. There's an even bigger difference between linking to a site where some user may have posted, on some page other than the one to which you linked, full lyrics to a song, which you were not aware was posted, and copying a book. However, under SOPA, either of these can get your site taken down.

Have you read SOPA? Linking to infringing material is, most definitely, illegal under SOPA. Why do you think search engines would have to filter their results or face hefty fines? Oh, because those links would become illegal.

The current copyright laws already apply to the internet. Can you point out how they don't?

Until I linked you to the full text earlier today, you hadn't even read SOPA. I'm still not sure that you have.


howardfine

join:2002-08-09
Saint Louis, MO
Reviews:
·AT&T Southwest
reply to BronsCon
said by BronsCon:

This doesn't just specifically target websites intent on piracy. This targets even the smallest "innocent" infringement;

No it doesn't. As I alluded to earlier about "the money", I would bet the Attorney General is not going to act much on anything unless he's alerted to a problem. And he's not going to be alerted to any problem unless someone feels they are losing money and lots of it. MGM won't complain about someone showing a 10-second clip from one of their movies cause it might promote the film but will raise holy hell about someone making the whole film available online. The same thing for Bayer if someone was promoting a knock off of their aspirin.

Speaking of which, a good side affect of this in medicine would be that you are less likely to get a bottle of compressed flour or arsenic if such rogues had no site to list on.


BronsCon

join:2003-10-24
Walnut Creek, CA
Reviews:
·Comcast Business..
·SONIC.NET
reply to howardfine
said by howardfine:

Exactly! That's what SOPA's for!

How does SOPA protect anyone in that instance?

If I can't afford to buy from the US manufacturer, but I can afford to buy from the Canadial company, why should I have to go without a drug that I might need to save my life?

SOPA would be hurting me, in that instance, and not helping the US drug company, since I wouldn't be able to buy from them anyway.

Get your head out of your ass and realize what this is about. It's censorship, plain and simple.

With no appeal process and no means by which the public can review a site's content after it has been blocked or taken down, what's to stop the government from taking down any and all sites they disagree with, under the guise of copyright violation?

That's beside the point, though. If, as you said earlier, it is possible to sue an international entity based on the laws of your own country (e.g. you said a french company could sue me if i violated their copyright on the web), then we have all we need to be able to enforce copyright internationally, as it is. Why do we need SOPA, which gives the government way too much control, including the power of censorship?

Wake up and smell the roses, they've started to rot and it smells like shit in here.


howardfine

join:2002-08-09
Saint Louis, MO
Reviews:
·AT&T Southwest
reply to BronsCon
said by BronsCon:

Have you read SOPA? Linking to infringing material is, most definitely, illegal under SOPA.


I was saying linking to copyrighted material is not illegal.
quote:
The current copyright laws already apply to the internet. Can you point out how they don't?
SOPA is essentially listing the actions and penalties. As I said, other than that, it only references the copyright laws.
quote:
Until I linked you to the full text earlier today, you hadn't even read SOPA. I'm still not sure that you have.

I'm not sure you read anything I've posted then including the part where I said I read through it quickly. Since then, I posted parts of the text including bullet points. And then I spoke of the content. So if you think I'm just guessing at all this, we can just end this right now.


BronsCon

join:2003-10-24
Walnut Creek, CA
Reviews:
·Comcast Business..
·SONIC.NET
reply to howardfine
First of all, talk to someone on the YouTube team at Google. I know a few of them personally. Yes, MGM will complain about that 10 second clip. They do so dozens of times daily, and the DMCA already requires that those clips be taken down when there is a complaint. SOPA would require that YouTube be taken down if there was a complaint.

Second, to someone with a condition that requires they take a drug to survive, if they can't afford to buy from the US supplier, it's worth risking their life to save their life. Flour would be like no pill at all, they die. Arsenic would be like no pill at all, they die. The right pill, that saves their life. All things being equal, that's a 33% chance of getting the drug they need to survive. Do you really believe that it's ok to take that away from them in the name of protecting a corporation's profits, when we already have laws in place which do that quite effectively?


BronsCon

join:2003-10-24
Walnut Creek, CA
reply to howardfine
You "read through it quickly". I suggest giving it a more thorough read and giving some consideration to the full implications of the bill.


howardfine

join:2002-08-09
Saint Louis, MO
Reviews:
·AT&T Southwest
reply to BronsCon
said by BronsCon:

said by howardfine:

Exactly! That's what SOPA's for!

How does SOPA protect anyone in that instance?

If I can't afford to buy from the US manufacturer, but I can afford to buy from the Canadial company, why should I have to go without a drug that I might need to save my life?
What is preventing you from buying legal drugs from Canada?
quote:
SOPA would be hurting me, in that instance, and not helping the US drug company, since I wouldn't be able to buy from them anyway.

What is preventing you from buying the same drug by the same manufacturer from a Canadian pharmacy?
quote:
Get your head out of your ass and realize what this is about. It's censorship, plain and simple.
Oh, now it comes out. It's boiled down to name calling and that's where I draw the line. If you can't follow along and want to continue to make things up on your own, and you have to stoop to name calling, then I'm done with you. I thought this would be an intelligent argument but apparently you're not up to it.


BronsCon

join:2003-10-24
Walnut Creek, CA
Reviews:
·Comcast Business..
·SONIC.NET
What's stopping me from buying the drug the original manufacturer charges more for than I can afford from a different supplier who also gets if from the original manufacturer? Probably that the price would still be high, as it was originally high due to what the original manufacturer charges the supplier. Plain and simple.

I didn't call names. My understanding of SOPA comes from speaking with friends of mine who happen to deal with copyright laws on a daily basis. They surely understand it better than either you or I. You've made numerous strawman arguments that I simply didn't see a point in calling you out on. You also claim to have quoted the bill directly in your posts, but I did not see this; all I ever saw was a reference to the first two lines of the bill. That, sir, is the very definition of having one's head up one's ass. I'm only sorry I had to be so blunt about it to get you out of my thread. There was no intelligent argument here, just one person talking about SOPA and another person building strawmen.


Stem Bolt
Aka Smiling Bob
Premium
join:2002-11-08
Cleveland, OH
kudos:2
reply to BronsCon
21,000 domains transfer out of Go Daddy in 1 day

»news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-573481···n-1-day/
quote:
Domain registrar Go Daddy lost over 21,000 domains yesterday. It could be a coincidence--or it could be the result of the company's p.r. debacle over its support for the Stop Online Piracy Act.


BronsCon

join:2003-10-24
Walnut Creek, CA
Wow, only 21k? I heard it was 10k in the first hour, climbing to over 100k. I wonder if that 21k is just what GoDaddy's reporting publicly or if CNet has another, more trustworthy, source for this information.


MVS7
Premium
join:2005-04-18
That article is only counting the number of domains that switched from GoDaddy's default DNS servers (domaincontrol.com) to another DNS provider, so it's not a very accurate picture of the number of transfers out. This site isn't 100% accurate either, but it's much closer:
»www.webhosting.info/registrars/r···ADDY.COM


BronsCon

join:2003-10-24
Walnut Creek, CA
Reviews:
·Comcast Business..
·SONIC.NET
Ahh, so then they couldn't know the number of domains transferred, anyway. I've ever had a transfer involving GD (in or out, doesn't matter) take less than a business week to complete; so, there's no was one could count transfers this early based on that method.

Edit: Just looked at that link and... Hrmm... Seems that as their total domains decreases, their market share increases. To me, that says a lot of people, more than are registering new domains and regardless of registrar, are letting their domains just expire. We'll see what this week's numbers say, when they come out.

Thanks for the link, I hadn't seen that until today.


huntermcdole
Premium
join:2005-08-01
Tucson, AZ
Reviews:
·Cox HSI
·ViaTalk
reply to BronsCon
Just an FYI, it appears big names might be thinking a blackout in protest. »www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/12/···out-net/


BronsCon

join:2003-10-24
Walnut Creek, CA
Reviews:
·Comcast Business..
·SONIC.NET
Good, good, good. I don't care whether it's my event or another, Google, Facebook, Wikipedia, and Amazon (also, the entirity of the cheezburger network, 4chan, tumblr, digg, reddit, and the link) were my primary targets for participation. I was hoping to garner some support here and have at least a short list of participating sites prior to contacting anyone bit; though I did contact Facebook, Wikipedia, and Cheezburger to invite them to consider participating, stating that their pledge of participation would almost instantly boost support for such an event and they would certainly not be the only ones acting. All I've heard back so far is from the Wikimedia Foundation, stating they the foundation does not get involved in political process and that a blackout is being considered by the English Wikipedia group; when I wrote back asking to be directed to a contact in that group, I did not receive a response.

I knew I couldn't have been the only person thinking an organized blackout was a good idea; but I hadn't heard anything in the media. Since many of the sites I was hoping would eventually join in are talking about organizing their own, I'm ok with this.