

Tom's Hardware's take on SOPA - masonhensley
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/toms-hardware-sopa-Stop-Online-Piracy-Act-PROTECT-IP-Senate,14393.html

======
notatoad
thanks for posting this - it's probably the most coherent, straightforward,
and relatable piece i've seen so far on SOPA.

~~~
meanguy
"It would require web services like YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter to monitor
and aggressively filter everything all users upload."

False. It's the opposite actually. A site continues to have existing safe
harbor protection UNLESS it does this. Even Congress knows you can't put this
type of burden on sites.

"It would deny site owners due process of law, by initiating a DNS
blacklisting based solely on a good faith assertion by an individual copyright
or intellectual property owner."

False. Individuals and corporations cannot DNS blacklist, or block from Google
results. That's only allowed based on a request from the Attorney General,
requires approval of a Judge, and only applies to foreign companies that
explicitly and solely exist for the purpose of copyright infringement.

In short, it's the worst article I've ever seen on Tom's Hardware. And like
watching something on CNN when you clearly know more about it than they do,
I'm left to wonder if they're this wrong on everything, or it's just a rare
case of them talking about something they know absolutely nothing about.

But I do see why we're so worried about politics affecting the web. We're not
good at it and we're too lazy to actually read the proposals. We sure are
great at moving incorrect information around, though!

~~~
bentlegen
Instead of calling out hearsay with your own hearsay, why not cite the
relevant pieces of the legislation?

~~~
meanguy
Unfortunately you can't really cite something that isn't there. My point is
that there's nothing in SOPA that says what Tom's Hardware claims.

The bill breaks down into two main sections.

Section 102 covers foreign sites only. It grants the government the power to
tinker with DNS and remove sites from Google search results. It only applies
to sites registered overseas that have no US points of contact. In other
words, it's an attempt to deal with sites that moved overseas to avoid the
DMCA. This is the core of why the bill exists. Debate the DNS technical issue
all you want, but since Tom's Hardware isn't overseas, none of this applies to
them.

Section 103 extends the DMCA to allow individuals to send takedown notices to
payment providers and ad networks. Again, I can't cite something that isn't
there, but you can read the bill (it's really rather short) and see that it
explicitly does not mention DNS. That stuff requires action by the Attorney
General and separate approval by a Judge (section 102).

Both section 102 and 103 powers further limited ONLY to sites that "primarily
designed or operated for the purpose of, has only limited purpose or use other
than" copyright infringement (17 USC 501), circumventing copyright (17 USC
1201), or trademark infringement (18 USC 2320).

Is Tom's Hardware a site that is primarily designed for the purpose of
copyright infringement? Not at all. The bill doesn't even apply to them.

There are certainly parts of the bill worth tweaking and debating, but it's
going to be hard to make progress on that in the total absence of facts.

I also think it was a huge mistake for PG to boycott and uninvite people from
the demos over SOPA.

If a company stands up and expresses an opinion which matches its business
interests during the debate over an unpassed bill -- that somehow renders them
unworthy to talk to entrepreneurs who have a different opinion? The bill is in
flux and the debate is heated (and, as shown above, largely uninformed).

If anything, the way to fix some of these idiotic, outdated copyright laws is
to combine great tech with the IP assets held by the old guard and open up new
opportunities. But PG doesn't want the two sides even talking while the debate
is under way? That's premature and shortsighted.

------
lightcatcher
I hadn't taken the time to learn anything about SOPA (mostly ignored the
protests) until this. This article was great because its a straightforward
account, and it prompted me to write a SOPA letter to my representatives.

------
erickhill
Any UGC-based site should be very, very concerned. It is beyond worrisome that
something as described in the article (the UG video upload and the potential
legal implications) could be made into law.

This article really brings it home.

~~~
jader201
Something that occurred to me when reading this that had not occurred to me
before.

This could open up a new channel for attacks against web sites. Forget about
those that are just posting content with the intent of sharing. What about
those that simply post/upload copyrighted content with the sole intent of
bringing your site down.

Another thing that occurred, was that there is so much of this going on today,
that unless people drastically change their habits, or courts are very
selective with who they prosecute, every owner of every site on the web will
end up in court.

~~~
dangrossman
While the wording isn't set in stone yet, SOPA targets foreign entities,
meaning the site has to be owned by someone outside the US. It also creates
private rights of action, meaning individuals and corporations bringing their
own suits in court, not just government prosecutors.

So if SOPA passed today, every site on the web won't end up in court, but a
big rightsholder with good crawling technology like Getty (the stock photo
company with a litigation machine already in place) has a whole new way to
prosecute-en-masse... this time with the ability to cut off payments and
advertising for domains that would've simply ignored their threats in the
past.

