

SOPA died in 2012, but Obama administration wants to revive part of it - chrismjelde
http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/08/05/sopa-died-in-2012-but-obama-administration-wants-to-revive-part-of-it/

======
rayiner
Absolutely ridiculous. There is no reason copyrights should be protected more
strongly than traditional property rights. If I trespass on someone's land,
it's not a felony. If I build a hotel on someone's land, it's still not a
felony. The redress for copyright violations should be civil lawsuits, not
criminal prosecutions.

~~~
alan_cx
Don't Americans have guns to protect property? I suppose in fairness Disney
cant run out and wave a gun at people downloading cartoons.

Yes, its disgustingly over the top, but then, what isn't these days?

~~~
hga
No, actually. Outside of Texas, the exception that proves the rule, you are
_not_ allowed to use lethal force to protect property.

As I understand Texas law (which I wouldn't surprise to find judicially
nullified someday, like similar Oklahoma law), you are allowed to use lethal
force on someone stealing your property after a verbal warning.

Which is in no way analogous to the point you're making. US law very much does
not support "self-help" as its called to redress wrongs after the fact.

~~~
jbooth
I'm pretty sure the castle doctrine applies in most states?

Hell, 'stand your ground' applies in a decent plurality of states these days.

~~~
hga
Weak Castle Doctrine, no duty to retreat in your home, exists in 46 states
according to Wikipedia, which sounds about right. E.g. assume you have to
retreat from your home in Massachusetts, no matter the current law, case law
or circumstances.

Stand Your Ground in 22 states. As in no duty to retreat any place you have a
right to be, which prevents second guessing from the calm and comfort of a
courtroom. Or as Oliver Wendell Holmes put it in the 1921 US Supreme Court
case _Brown v. United States_ , " _Detached reflection cannot be demanded in
the presence of an uplifted knife._ "

~~~
jbooth
"E.g. assume you have to retreat from your home in Massachusetts, no matter
the current law, case law or circumstances."

Why?

~~~
hga
Because that's what the courts want _very badly_ , at least as of the '80s.
Several rounds of the solidly Democratic legislature passing "this time we
mean it!" laws and the courts judicially nullifying as much as they could.

In one case I "watched" by reading the _Boston Globe_ as it was tried, a man
was sent to prison because he wasn't willing to leave his sleep daughter to
the tender mercies of an home invader.

Too many people wonder why Michael Dukakis won only 10 states in 1988; not
those of us in the the state who were paying attention to e.g. these judges he
elevated to the bench.

~~~
jbooth
In the 80s? It's 2013, man, get with the times and start ripping on Chicago.

In this decade, I'd go to the anecdote from WI last year of the dude who, upon
a high school party being broken up by the cops next door, shot a kid hiding
from the cops on his porch and wasn't charged.

~~~
hga
I'm referring to the '80s because that was when I was residing in
Massachusetts, and that was what I could look forward to if I used lethal
force in self-defense. Also an automatic 1st degree murder trial, "Let the
jury sort it out" was the AG's idea of prosecutorial discretion.

As for the Wisconson case you're referring to, the facts not surprisingly
paint a very different picture. Per this news item:
[http://fox6now.com/2012/05/05/photos-of-bo-morrison-crime-
sc...](http://fox6now.com/2012/05/05/photos-of-bo-morrison-crime-scene-
released/) and others, the porch was only technically one, it was fully
enclosed and furnished like an interior room, had an appliance
(fridge/freezer?) and other indoor style stuff, and critically, from looking
at the outside, it appears to be fully a part of the house. I say critically
because the outdoor pictures make it very clear this can be legitimately
scored as a home invasion, whatever friends and family of the deceased
propagandize.

And per this from the shooter's wife, " _[she] told investigators she heard
her husband say, “What are you doing in my house” twice, then “Stay where you
are” twice, and later a single shot was fired._ "

So only "weak", no duty to retreat (in 46 states) Castle Doctrine comes into
play. He was not shot out of the blue or from behind, there was a
confrontation, so as long as the couple have proper account of the story and
the authorities don't catch them lying the failure to prosecute looks like its
solid. Just like the Zimmerman/Martin was before it become a political show
trial.

ADDED: Not surprisingly for a state that was until that year solid Blue,
Wisconsin as of 2010 didn't have a strong Castle Doctrine, the case law
explicitly says " _The doctrine is for defensive and not offensive purposes._
"

When you hear "unbelievable" stories like this, you should be suspicious,
they're generally unbelievable because they're flatly not true, except in the
sense of Revolutionary Truth, which as techies we shouldn't approve of (our
computers do not care about politics, just that 1 + 1 = 010).

~~~
jbooth
If we're being honest, the only reason to shoot the kid in that situation is
because you've always hoped you'd get to shoot a home invader one day.

~~~
hga
A _20 year old_ "kid"???

Yes, he's in that awkward period between 18 and 21 where he's legally an adult
who can't legally do a bunch of adult things, like the relevant posited
drinking (according to the more detailed accounts I read he wasn't hiding from
the police, the party was broken up by the incensed homeowner of the property
where it was happening arriving), but if you're going to call young men who
aren't even "teens" "kids", we have no basis for a discussion, we cannot get
past your idée fixe that he was automatically an innocent.

~~~
jbooth
Its Occam's razor -- if a house party full of underage drinkers just got
busted, and a drunk 20 yo is hiding on your porch, do you personally think
this is a flight or fight situation? Think this guy had a bit of an itchy
trigger finger? Honest question.

------
saosebastiao
Why not get straight to the point and call every crime a terrorist act? Then
we can have the America that Obama really wants...one where he can order
anybody's murder or infinite detention at any time for any reason.

~~~
AJ007
The 1980s solution to drug use in the US was simply to lock more people up
longer and give local and federal law enforcement more money. This was the
same response after September 11th. More laws, more money, more power.

Today we can see the results: "Police" armed with assault rifles patrol
streets. Surprise visits at night by men armed with fully automatic firearms
and large caliber sniper rifles is not considered abnormal. Most recently we
now know all of our communications are monitored, as are our whereabouts past
and present.

It would make a good science fiction movie, except the genre would be a
documentary.

------
elnate
Isn't a felony supposed to be for serious crimes like assault?

~~~
yolonoexception
Yes, hence why Obama is pushing for it to be felony. He/Hollywood wants to
discourage and intimidate people at whatever level he/they can get away with
so people do not stream and instead go to theatres or stream at websites they
are supported by the producers. It is all about the money.

~~~
viraptor
This is the part I'm really confused about. How are people supposed to know
which source is authorised for distribution and which isn't? In some countries
you can go to BBC iPlayer and just play some movies. In some you can't. In
some you can use Hulu, in some you can't.

Basically if I google "watch Xyz online" I will get a long list of results
where I'm 2 clicks away from watching Xyz - how am I supposed to know which of
those are legal sources? For some movies the top result can be youtube. For
others it will be watchseries.{whatever tld they use this month}. Unless
everyone makes all their agreements and contracts public, I can't reasonably
tell if they are allowed to redistribute.

~~~
randomflavor
They are mostly going after the dealers of the unauth streams collecting ad
revenue around it. It's MEGA again.

------
sbjustin
Is anyone really surprised? Congress and the President haven't cared about the
constitution thus far, why would it be any different now? Eighth Amendment:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel
and unusual punishments inflicted

A bit excessive? Throw the streamers in with the murderers and rapist, they'll
come out better people.

------
alan_cx
Is this so freedom loving American big business can use the government they
paid for to extradite, render, kidnap and perhaps torture dirty, thieving,
terrorist, pedophile, A-Rab foreigners for downloading Breaking Bad?

------
jwaldrip
Regulating SOPA will prove to be more cost prohibitive than actually solving
the real problem. The real problem is that people want to be able to get
content on demand, and the problem is that media companies are unwilling to
adopt new ways of delivering that content. The music industry was plagued by
this same thing a decade ago, but allowing the online purchase of content
either via subscription or purchase has significantly reduced music piracy.
Adopting the same principals for movies and television shows across the board
will undoubtably have the same effect. The fact of the matter is that until
studios are willing to be more flexible with their means of distribution
rather than trying to have full control, then piracy will continue to be a
problem.

------
reginaldjcooper
Obama: let's just cut to the end and make using a computer a felony.

------
mrtksn
if enough crimes can be committed by sharing data online then the government
would have enough incentive to hold complete control over the internet to
prevent such crimes.

these people really want total control over flow of information.

------
JanneVee
Let me take a guess, the lobbyist for Microsoft suggest an "improvement" that
makes running pipelight ([http://fds-team.de/cms/articles/2013-08/pipelight-
using-silv...](http://fds-team.de/cms/articles/2013-08/pipelight-using-
silverlight-in-linux-browsers.html)) also a felony.

------
TallGuyShort
Can it be any clearer that he's going against the will of the people? If you
have to keep resurrecting laws that have "died" and trying to sneak them
through another way, it stops being democracy. It becomes a battle of who has
the most persistent and over-staffed legal team.

------
Zoomla
Is it still a good time to invest in jails?

------
ap22213
This isn't a big surprise. The US really only has a few net-positive exports,
and media products are one of the big ones (and military products, is another,
iirc)

~~~
greeneggs
Source? This does not pass the smell test. (And why do you qualify "net-
positive exports"?)

~~~
hga
Indeed. Off the top of my head, agricultural products, civilian airplanes, jet
engines and avionics, heavy machinery (Caterpillar), I'd be really surprised
to learn we didn't export a lot of farm machinery, high end CPUs....

------
canadiancreed
This guy seems to be trying his damnest to piss away what good will he had at
replacing an administration that was derided for pretty much the same actions.

~~~
hondje
This is the time when politicians pay back their masters, before the next
election gears up. This gives time between pissing people off and then having
to convince them to vote for more of the same.

~~~
canadiancreed
Gives a good reason to remove term limits; keeps folks from proposing silly
things like this, knowing that they won't be held accountable by the
electorate as they can't run after their term is up.

Of course that takes an informed electorate, which...well that's another topic
entirely.

------
TronPaul_
Is there anywhere in the article that has a quote from the Obama
administration that suggests the title of the article. All I get from reading
it was that SOPA had a provision to make streaming a felony and that people
fought against it. No where does it give any information about how its
resurrection is being attempted.

------
throwawaykf02
I haven't even read TFA but I can bet you this: the felons would be those
uploading the streams, not those downloading.

How do I know this? Because copyright law targets, and always has targeted,
those distributing copyrighted material without license rather than those
consuming it. One of the reasons is, as a comment elsewhere makes evident [1],
it is not the responsibility of the consumer to know whether goods being
purchased have been legally procured.

Where this gets tricky is in Bittorrent swarms, unless you leech, each peer
uploads as well as downloads content, making each user a party to the
"distribution" of content. This is what enabled those famous P2P lawsuits
which resulted in those fines.

People like to think of the RIAA and MPAA as stupid dinosaurs, but as comments
here make it clear, they've been undeniably successful in getting people to
associate "downloading" with "illegal activity".

1\.
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6249355](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6249355)

~~~
snsr
> the felons would be those uploading the streams, not those downloading

I don't think that's completely accurate. This effort would expose sites and
services to secondary liability for the actions of their users.

------
dragontamer
Link-bait article is link-baity.

The US Trademark and Patent Office is expected to take a pro-copyright stance.
The "Administration" reference, refers to Eric Holder's petition to Congress
here:
[http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/493524-AG_Holder_Ju...](http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/493524-AG_Holder_Justice_Should_Be_Able_to_Go_After_Some_Illegal_Streaming_as_Felony.php)

>>> Asked by Rep. Mel Watt (D-N.C.) why Justice felt it needed that expanded
power, Holder said that sometimes such streaming involves thousands and
millions of dollars. He said that Justice wasn't looking to turn streaming
from a misdemeanor to a crime, but that in some cases it needed that added
power "consistent with the nature of the harm."

At most, the "Obama Administration" (specifically, Eric Holder) feels like
some forms of streaming need to be punished more harshly. It seems like
pirating a live performance is less punishable than pirating anything else.

------
carl_banks
Literally over Aaron Schwartz's dead body.

