dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
4
share rss forum feed


howardfine

join:2002-08-09
Saint Louis, MO
reply to BronsCon

Re: SOPA Protest/Awareness Event

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.


BronsCon

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

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:
·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
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.


BronsCon

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

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
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.


howardfine

join:2002-08-09
Saint Louis, MO
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:
·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.