

Alexis Ohanian vs NBC - Debating SOPA - sethbannon
http://upwithchrishayes.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/15/10161056-debating-sopa

======
inmygarage
A summary for those who don't have 18 minutes:

1\. Excellent introduction and overview of the debate by Chris Hayes

2\. NBC General Counsel makes three interesting (cringe-worthy) points:

-jobs

-this only applies to international sites

-the internet is a lawless place

3\. He is mostly shot down by Hayes who said if it really only applied to
international rogue sites then people wouldn't be making such a big deal about
it

4\. Alexis makes the points:

-the problem of piracy will best be solved by innovation, not legislation

-the internet is not a "lawless" place and the DMCA is effective

-"piracy is a service problem" ie, if you provide better access to information you will win

5\. Random other dude chimes in and says the government did a massive study
and can't conclusively say that piracy is killing jobs _at all_... the
entertainment industry is actually growing

6\. NBC GC talks a little bit more, mostly being hysterical about how piracy
is rampant and terrible.

Great job Alexis!!

~~~
kn0thing
Thanks for the recap and all the comments below; I'm doing a heavy post-mortem
on this.

I really didn't expect him to so adamantly lie like that. And then to first be
called out by Chris about it and boldly say "Chris, seriously, that is wrong"
and then declare that we're making it up -- that takes stones.

I'd really love to know what the best way to confront this in such a format
(my first time doing live TV debate).

Is it:

"No, you're wrong. Anti-circumvention provisions affect US sites, US sites
with foreign domain names (like .it) are affected, and US companies who would
have to remove links from search results are all examples of how you're
wrong."

I worry I've lost the average TV viewer by the second sentence.

And then there's dealing with someone interrupting you... I'm curious to see
what the HN community thinks about optimally handling that one.

~~~
spolsky
This law is too complicated for the average TV viewer to understand. Debating
it on the merits is going to make you lose. You have to find counterpoints
that the average TV viewer WILL understand. They have to fit comfortably in a
tweet.

When they say, "This is a jobs bill," you say, "This is a typical big
government attempt to meddle in something they don't understand."

When they say, "This won't affect American sites," you say, "Search engines
don't pirate movies. Neither do Visa or Paypal. Going after them is just
unfair." [Note: _Search engines_. Not DNS. The minute you say DNS you lose.]

When they say, "Google profits from pirated software," you say, "Not as much
as the congressmen are profiting from the $95 million dollars in lobbyist
money that paid for this bill."

Other talking points: "How come congress can't seem to agree on anything that
matters to the country? Unemployment, the deficit... they're totally
gridlocked. But when the entertainment industry pays lobbyists $95 million to
get a bill they wrote passed, both Republicans and Democrats line up to co-
sponsor it."

Trying to say something that actually gets to the merit of the bill is a waste
of time on a Sunday morning talk show... it's just too complicated an issue.

~~~
cdixon
Sadly, I think Joel is right. Format is designed for soundbites.

~~~
kn0thing
Thanks, gents. I think this really nails it (I second your sadness).

~~~
myprasanna
Numbers about hulu accelerating revenue for the movie industry and actually
combating the free pirated ones with a better service might have been a good
counter-point followup.

[http://steveblank.com/2012/01/04/why-the-movie-industry-
cant...](http://steveblank.com/2012/01/04/why-the-movie-industry-cant-
innovate-and-the-result-is-sopa/)

------
cal5k
That was absolutely frustrating to watch. Alexis is a well-spoken guy with
cogent points to make, but I think he was outmatched in that debate by a guy
with way more media experience. Richard Cotton stuck to his deceptive,
populist talking points ("jobs", "wholesale theft", "will not affect a single
US site") to great effect.

Alexis will get better as he continues to appear in the media, and I'm sure
he's getting media coaching, but he needs to be more aggressive in, for
example, telling Richard Cotton to shove it when he rudely interrupts.

It's as simple as "Richard, Richard... I let you speak, now let me finish my
point. The problem with..."

Still, props to Alexis for actively fighting against these awful, awful bills!

~~~
toyg
I don't think he was outmatched. If anything, he came out as a young, smart,
polite guy running a successful business at the forefront of innovation -- the
best America can offer, really.

Cotton came out as the rich, smiling shark that he is, which makes smart
people dismissive of anything he has to say. His very first line "let's make a
step back: we are talking about jAAAAAbs" sounds like something any two-faced
lying politician would say. He did get more airplay, because he was incredibly
rude, but I don't expect anything less from an executive of the network that
is producing the show in the first place (it was actually kinda ballsy for
Hayes to tell him he was flat-out wrong).

So, all in all, I don't think Alex should change much in his presentation; the
only mistake he made, I think, was that he was too eager to push the "piracy
is a service problem" soundbite before he had actually explained why that is
the case.

~~~
balloot
Disagree. I think Cotton clearly won the debate. His "The law only affects
foreign companies involved in wholesale piracy" talking point is persuasive
and was never refuted.

~~~
toyg
It was an ambush tactic -- he introduced a complete lie among his talking
points, and dared everyone else to refute it. The next time around, anti-SOPA
spokespersons will fire back on this point "with chapter and verse".
Considering we're still quite far from the decisive votes, seeing the pro-SOPA
camp already forced to resort to outright lies is comforting, they clearly
have nothing else to show.

~~~
balloot
But HOW is his talking point a "complete lie"? It is amazing to me that nobody
either on that interview or in this comment thread can clearly and succinctly
point out how the NBC exec was lying.

~~~
rooshdi
Section 102:

(a) DEFINITION.—For purposes of this section, a _foreign Internet site_ or
portion thereof is a _"foreign infringing site"_ if—

(1) the Internet site or portion thereof is a _U.S.-directed_ site and is used
by users in the _United States_

The term _foreign_ used in this case is quite misleading.

~~~
tszyn
I think you misunderstood this. Let me rephrase the above definition to make
it easier to parse:

"A foreign infringing site is a FOREIGN SITE for which it is true that (1)...
(2)... (3)..."

FOREIGN SITE is defined in section 101 as "an Internet site that is not a
domestic Internet site".

DOMESTIC INTERNET SITE = "an Internet site for which the corresponding domain
name or, if there is no domain name, the corresponding Internet Protocol
address, is a domestic domain name or domestic Internet Protocol address". It
is open to interpretation whether a site with a US and non-US domain is a
domestic site.

~~~
rooshdi
_It is open to interpretation whether a site with a US and non-US domain is a
domestic site._

Exactly. There is a lot in this bill which is _open for interpretation_.

------
mkolodny
I love what Alexis is doing, but unfortunately I think Richard Cotton won this
one. As someone who cares about the future of technology and the internet, I
know that what Mr. Cotton said isn't true, that this legislation will not only
affect foreign companies "wholesalely devoted to illegal content". Yet, as a
consumer, I come away from that debate remembering little past the fact that
the media companies and their supporters only want to go after these evil
foreign websites. "Sure it might not work, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't
try."

We need to push a clear explanation of why and how this legislation does
actually affect US companies in a negative and unjust way. I believe it does,
but not having read the legislation (neither will 99.9% of Americans), I don't
know exactly how, or why. SOPA supporters' strongest argument seems to be that
this act will not harm lawful, job creating US companies. We need a concise
explanation of how this harms US companies that is easy for the non-technical
American to understand.

------
dpapathanasiou
Alexis is doing a fine job, but I'd really like to see Tim O'Reilly on these
shows and appearing before Congress: [http://gigaom.com/2012/01/13/tim-
oreilly-why-im-fighting-sop...](http://gigaom.com/2012/01/13/tim-oreilly-why-
im-fighting-sopa/)

Not only is he running a media company (which ostensibly should be in favor of
SOPA), but also he's the same generation as the lawyers, lobbyists, and
legislators supporting SOPA.

~~~
cbs
O'Reilly is able to hold the position he does because he publishes high
quality work. If you walk into a bookstore knowing nothing other than you need
a book on Subject X, the book you walk out with will probably have a pen and
ink animal drawn on the cover.

Most other creators are just churning out low rate disposable content. Their
business models are struggling under the legal alternatives the internet has
come to offer, just look at what happened to newspapers.

Now that distribution is solved, competition has sky-rocketed and they're
fighting a market that wants to show them just how little their product is
worth these days. Steam may be the internet distribution posterboy, but think
of any other type of media producer who looks at steam. There are rock bottom
prices on everything that isn't a AAA title released in the last 6 months.

They're stuck fighting the new marketplace realities, they can't afford to see
piracy in the periphery (like O'Reilly can), so they do the one thing they
know how to: give cash to congress to make that problem go away.

~~~
Natsu
Don't forget that he's got that Safari, too, which is essentially "Books as a
Service." Yes, his books are high quality too (I have a ton!), but he also has
a superior distribution platform that the pirates simply cannot match.

EDIT: Typo.

------
swanson
I have to ask, what is the rebuttal to Richard Cotton's assertion that this
only effects "wholesale piracy websites outside the USA"? Because no one
seemed to be able to come up with one on the show - which is disturbing since
I would think the opposition would have a strong counter argument to this.

People (on the show and in this thread) keep saying that what Cotton said
isn't true and is deceptive - but where are the factual arguments?

~~~
pingswept
The rebuttal is this:

The bill defines "foreign infringing sites" as those infringing sites that
have their domains registered outside the US, are "US-directed" and "used by
users in the United States." This would include, for example, all the sites
that use Libya's top-level domain, like bit.ly, but would not include a site
like thepiratebay.org, as the US controls the .org top-level domain.

You can check that this is true by reading Sec. 101.3-8 and Sec. 102.1.a. (13
lines of text in total) on the Library of Congress website here:

    
    
      http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.3261:
    

This doesn't address whether a site is "infringing" or not, but it makes it
clear that sites that most people would consider US websites, like bit.ly, can
certainly be affected by the bill. Cotton's argument that only foreign sites
will be affected is bogus, when you look at the details of what "foreign"
means.

~~~
balloot
That still doesn't explain why Google is opposed to the bill.

I think there's a better explanation that is linked to the enforcement of
situations such as "someone googles Pirate Bay and gets a link to the site".
SOPA puts Google at fault for this, and I assume the enforcement mechanism
could very much harm a US company (Google). Unfortunately, time ran out on the
segment right as they were getting to this point.

~~~
jcrites
I think Google and other web companies are opposed because it will create
potentially significant administration burden for them.

That is probably not the only reason, but I suspect it is sufficient reason
for most opposition.

~~~
thebigshane
The bill does apparently say that it does not force US based sites, ISPs, Name
servers to change their current operations.

    
    
       NO TECHNOLOGY MANDATES.—Nothing in
       title I shall be construed to impose a duty on an en-
       tity described in section 102(c) or 103(c) to design
       its network, technology, or service to forestall or pre-
       vent acts that would actually or potentially create a
       cause of action under such title, or to utilize any
       particular type of technology to comply with the re-
       quirements of such title.
    

Perhaps someone else can shine some light in how Google could still be victim
to increased administrative burden.

~~~
adgar
When I read that paragraph as a layman, I read two points:

1\. A US entity does not have to redesign anything to _slow_ or _prevent_
infringing search results/credit card payments/etc in order to avoid liability

2\. No _particular type of technology_ must be utilized to comply: they're
explicitly saying they won't require firms to "use PiracyBlocker2001 on your
network" or "filter search results with the ProtectLouisVuittonsProfitMargin
algorithm" or something to that effect.

------
nohat
So is there a good explanation (link to those lawyer analyses mentioned by
Hayes perhaps) of specifically how US sites are affected? My understanding is
that if someone posts a circumvention method (eg. link to new domain) then the
site on which it was posted have liability. Is this correct?

------
badclient
My critique:

"The internet is a lawless place."

Alexis responds by citing DMCA. DMCA is probably the _weakest_ thing to cite
when trying to show that the Internet is already regulated. How about citing
all the myriad other laws that are applied everyday to prosecute and jail
folks for fraud over the internet?

You could literally make the guy look like a fool over that one word: lawless.
The good thing is, this is such a common argument it will come up again and
again. Just remember: everyday folks get arrested and prosecuted for crime
over the internet; is that common in a lawless place?

~~~
nextparadigms
It should also be noted and remind everyone who says that the more chaotic and
"lawless" nature of the Internet is also what helps innovation to thrive on
it. It should be said that you can't have one without the other.

------
RandallBrown
I'm really surprised how rude Richard Cotton was. It doesn't matter what
anyone else was saying, he would just interrupt and tell them they were wrong.

~~~
ericb
It strikes me that he is deliberately lying and pretending SOPA actually says
only something that more people would support, ie "shutting down illegal
foreign websites stealing american content."

I suspect that someone at his level who is speaking publicly on the issue
knows _exactly_ what is in this bill. After all, it is his lobbying money that
is buying the bill in the first place.

How can Alexis defend against this bald-faced lie in future debates? It seems
like a tough thing to defend against.

~~~
dpeck
This is something that those against SOPA and other measures are going to have
to get better at. He knows he's lying (or "framing"), he's had years of
practice at it. Alexis and others speaking for the technology sector don't. In
general they tend to be somewhat humble, confident, and mostly honest people.
The success they've had in their lives has been built on the work of countless
others and there is a certain amount of deference and pragmatism even in our
brightest and accomplished spokespeople.

This needs to change. There is an art to hyperbole, and as much as it makes us
all cringe, we need to start engaging in it and framing the argument in a way
that will get the visceral juices flowing a bit. "This bill will cause
Facebook to delete your account and any of your friends if you post a video",
"This bill will force youtube to delete all the videos you took at your childs
birthday party", etc. You lose the argument when you accept a compromise when
starting from the position you want to finish in. You have to pull back much
further, like SOPA proponents are doing, and hope that the middle ground falls
further in your interest than others.

------
jaekwon
"This legislation specifically says there can be no secondary liability. The
only thing that can happen pursuant to a court order is that an ad network, a
credit card company, or a search engine has to respond with respect to a
specific site that has been adjudicated by the court to be wholesale..."

Search is a commodity. Look at the bottom of HackerNews. HackerNews is also a
search engine. It seems that there can be no secondary liability because SOPA
basically addresses all of the internet as we know it.

Also, what is to stop Google and other sites opposing SOPA from simply
blocking results to NBC and SOPA supporters? Throw them off the internet and
let them taste a bit of what they're asking for! Don't we have the right and
ability to do so?

------
balloot
So I'm going to play devil's advocate: The main talking point of the NBC exec
is "This law will only effect foreign companies engaged in wholesale theft".

It was never refuted on the interview, and I don't see it refuted in this
comment thread anywhere. Is this actually true?

------
emehrkay
Richard Cotton had talking points and stuck to them.

~~~
notatoad
i especially liked how he kept pushing the same two lines over and over again,
but as soon as alexis came close to saying any sort of soundbyte he just yells
out "sloganeering doesn't help anything".

~~~
Nrsolis
Cotton was used to the environment where he knows there is a limited amount of
time to make his case to the public. He (attempted to) connect it with a
subject they care about (jobs) and then did everything he could to shut down
any substantive exchange on the issue by talking over Alexis. Within the
limited amount of time available, Cotton got more of his message across than
Alexis.

I feel like I should be uploading episodes of 30 Rock to every site I can find
just to even things out.

------
marcamillion
Honestly...I kinda feel like Alexis could have been more 'technically
prepared'.

i.e. he should have been able to specifically point to clauses that he
disagrees with and why.

~~~
Nrsolis
I dont agree. He should have fought fire with fire and connected their attempt
to fight online piracy with the intrusive methods used by the large media
companies to control content.

For example, how the media companies force you to watch commercials that can't
be skipped when you purchase a DVD. People HATE those and using that as an
example of a world where SOPA/PIPA are the law of the land would win a few
points.

He should have also been much more forceful or accusatory and mounted a good
offense that Cotton would have been forced to defend against. This is an
effective debating strategy, nearly equivalent to the question "when did you
stop beating your wife" and can totally change the win/loss column.

But the BEST way to frame this debate is to discuss how INTRUSIVE the methods
will be. The ISPs will HAVE to install means of monitoring everything that is
done online in order to protect themselves from liability. This same
technology, once installed, could be used to block access to offshore
poker/gambling sites and that it s HUGE business in the US. There is literally
NO END to the kinds of disfavored businesses or information sources that could
be censored and if you don't know about them, then its likely to completely
change the open nature of the Internet. Making the point that this censorship
regime would look exactly like China's Great Firewall is effective. For all
intensive technological purposes, the two are the same.

~~~
marcamillion
Well....sounds like you are agreeing with me. I said I didn't think he was
well prepared enough. He should have spoken about SPECIFIC issues. i.e.
highlighted SPECIFIC ways the legislation recommends that things will be
implemented, or other specific ways that the internet (and our way of life)
will be impacted via language found in the legislation.

None of which he did. I felt like that could have been me talking - when it
shouldn't have felt like that. It should have felt like someone that is
intimately familiar with the legislation and have talking points about why it
is bad with specific examples. i.e. what you said :)

------
nextparadigms
Alexis has done a great deal to help fight against SOPA and his company Reddit
was one of the very first to schedule a blackout, but I don't think he's the
right guy to fight this on TV and in the long term.

We need someone like Doctorow, Rick Falkvinge, John Perry Barlow, or Tim
O'Reilly to keep fighting this on TV and in debates. We need someone who can
argue philosophically against bills like SOPA and PIPA, and someone who has
studied the bills well enough to be able to defend and attack every single
point SOPA-supporters can make.

Reddit and Google will only be able to keep fighting this as long as it
directly impacts them. There needs to be someone to argue against SOPA even
after they say it doesn't affect US sites. Just because it doesn't affect US
sites, doesn't mean it still won't break the Internet if it shuts down foreign
sites with little due process.

Also, if I'm not mistaken, SOPA also makes copyright infringement a felony,
which I believe is a first in US law. It also makes the service provider
responsible for the user's content. Again, this is unacceptable. There are
more examples like these in the bill, so there are other reasons besides the
DNS provision why this bill is bad. Someone needs to study it properly and
challenge them.

------
walru
Chris Hayes's introduction was excellent.

The guy Alexis was up against is assine. He stuck to his talking points, as
instructed, which many are blatantly incorrect, but were portrayed in a way
that joe public is able to understand and get behind.

During these kinds of talks, I'd like to see Alexis point out more how this is
censorship in it's highest form, and list the reasons/examples why.
Impassioned approaches are great, but the moment you step on the big stage you
have to become cold blooded and go for the jugular.

A big part of what I like about Alexis is that he's not that kind of guy.
However, if he's going to be representing us in this fight then he needs to
arm himself with the same drivel and talking points that his opponents have.
Otherwise, he himself is just a tool to help drive home the point of the SOPA-
PROS.

It's because of the capricious nature of this bill that we are left with the
prospects that this could be used as a method to squash speech deemed
undesired by those with the power to control it. Pointing out a hypothetical
case where someone in an elevated position, like Rupert Murdock, could have
had (online/third party) magazines, who were reporting on their recent phone
tapping scandal, shutdown for any number of reasons would be a perfect
example.

Many of us agree that piracy is primarily a service problem. The fact that
Netflix makes up over 30% of the United States nightly internet traffic is
proof. That's a whole lot of bandwidth that people are using because of the
convenience. However, this can't be the only argument we make to say why this
is poison legislation.

That said, I'd also like to have the talk that this legislation is still
easily circumvented not even mentioned. It's worth noting, but once again it
can't be a talking point as to why this legislation is bad.

------
citricsquid
Honestly, the host was awful (constant stammering) and that combined with
Alexis's naivety (with regards to how to present points) made the opposition
argument completely worthless. If I had no knowledge of why SOPA is bad I
would have come away from that video with the opinion that SOPA is fine...

I'm not sure why in any broadcast I've seen someone doesn't give examples, why
doesn't someone opposing SOPA say that "If a person goes to Facebook and posts
a link to thepiratebay.org then Warner Brothers can request Facebook be taken
offline"? Surely that is more than enough to explain the problem.

~~~
thebigshane
No one says that, because no one on TV believes that. I don't believe Alexis
Ohanian believes that either.

1) thepiratebay isn't targeted by SOPA.

2) Facebook isn't a foreign site, and not targeted by SOPA.

3) A court would have to agree that the site be taken down.

4) The entire site wouldn't be taken down because it isn't primary designed or
operated to enable or facilitate infringement.

~~~
robryan
From that though it sounds like it is possible, given a judge willing to take
some liberties with interpretation of SOPA. Unless it's explicitly not
possible it's still fair game to suggest that the bill is opening up that
possibility.

Given that content producers do things like claim every pirated copy as lost
income even though in reality they know this isn't the case I think taking the
powers given by SOPA to the extreme case could be a good tool in the argument.

~~~
thebigshane
Wait, #2 and #4 would also have to be true for this to be possible. To answer
your question, it's explicitly not possible, because Facebook.com is domestic
and is not primarily designed or operated to enable or facilitate
infringement.

------
yangez
"This legislation specifically says there can be no secondary liability [to
US-based sites]." - Richard Cotton. Then he contradicts himself 15 seconds
later.

Is Richard Cotton a liar or just ignorant?

~~~
thebigshane
Neither, just non-specific. US-based companies are forced to comply with take-
down requests after X (5?) days, but SOPA explicitly says that they are _not_
required to filter or monitor for potential infringement.

------
jimmy_cheese
Get in front of the camera as much as you can Alexis, great job for your first
showing. Don't be afraid to show how passionate you are about the
ramifications and the importance of freedom.

Point out that it's the media companies that are eroding any goodwill that
remains for them by criminalising their best customers instead of taking the
opportunity to listen to them. Unless I'm very wrong, a majority of the
audience will be people who both pirate at times and consume legal content
when its easy and fairly priced. I think the average Joe would be against SOPA
if they realised the ramifications - don't be afraid to point out horrible
scenarious that _could_ happen uner the letter fo the law, and don't accept
"oh it would never realistically be used in that way". Make people realise
what is being given away here.

------
balloot
After watching the video, it's clear that the argument of SOPA supporters is
going to be "this will never affect US companies". Google and Facebook have
come out very strongly against the bill, and I assume they did so not on a
whim, but on the advice of very high priced and intelligent legal counsel who
think these US companies WILL be affected.

The NBC exec successfully skated around any scenario that may happen in which
a US company gets punished due to SOPA. At the very end of the interview, the
talk was getting there ("So Google HAS to take Pirate Bay down from search.
What happens if it doesn't?") but the segment ended.

We need someone to get out there and clearly enumerate the scenarios in which
generally law-abiding US companies can get burned by SOPA. This was not
accomplished in the interview.

------
arthurgibson
Mr. Cotton is stuck in the brick and mortar business mode. He clearly does not
understand that the Internet has no borders. He is "wholesale" lumping every
international web site into this pot of illegal activity. Why didn't NBC bring
a VP or media exec on?

~~~
thirsteh
Richard Cotton is general council AND EVP of NBCUniversal:
[http://www.nbcuni.com/corporate/management/senior-
corporate-...](http://www.nbcuni.com/corporate/management/senior-corporate-
executives/nbc-universal/richard-cotton)

------
freerobby
This post explains well the problems with Richard Cotton's argument:
[http://ammori.org/2011/12/31/sopapipa-copyright-bills-
also-t...](http://ammori.org/2011/12/31/sopapipa-copyright-bills-also-target-
domestic-sites/)

------
djbender
Lol at the diagram for Arpanet that was displayed.

------
dotBen
The video quality was poor at fullscreen but it looked like Alexis Ohanian was
wearing a talkback earpiece in his left ear _(does anyone else see it?)_

I'm wondering whether he was receiving a live brief from his counsel backstage
during the debate? I doubt he'd be connected to the production room's on-set
talkback system, even the host didn't seem to have talkback in his ear.

EDIT: Talkback is the industry term for the closed radio connection between
production room and studio floor where the host will receive timing cues,
which camera to look at, etc.

------
patrickod
On a similar vein: for those of you who have not yet seen it Cory Doctorow's
talk "The coming war on general
computing"[<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg>] is definitely worth
viewing.

The most dangerous part of SOPA in my opinion is not the damage it'll do
immediately but the incredibly shortsighted legal precedent it'll make for
future legalization to use as reference.

------
plasma
Unfortunately, like (every single debate ever?), there isn't enough time.

A few people never got a chance to speak, Alexis is rightly looking a bit
frustrated at not being able to respond at times.

Why can't a debate last for 5 hours instead of 20 minutes?

Then we could see the details explored further (such as the act supposedly not
affecting US sites) instead of frustratingly brushed over due to time
constraints.

------
robryan
A good analogy could be a shopping center found to be renting a shop to a
business selling some counterfeit products. The SOPA equivalent would be to
cancel their ability to take further rent payments, remove their advertising
ability and something akin to lockin the front gate people use to get in (the
DNS block).

------
xenator
I wonder how ppl watch tv. Every 5 minutes they makes a stop for adv block
(even it is cut from online video). This makes my mind blowing. I know that
this discussion is about more important thing but you "forced me" to spend
time to it as I care about SOPA. But anyway I don't understand. TV is annoying
and awful.

------
iconfinder
Can anybody who has knowledge about SOPA answer some questions for me?

1\. Will the websites that are blocked by a result of SOPA only affect US
citizens? 2\. Can a foreign TLD such as .dk, .se etc. get blocked? 3\. What
happens if you use the IP-adress to ThePirateBay instead of the domain name?

~~~
toyg
1\. Who knows? It all depends on how they intend to implement this DNS
blocking. I'd expect non-US ISPs would stop using any US-based root
nameserver, circumventing the block. Considering most of entities taking care
of the root zone are either American institutions or US-base multinationals,
this would really pout a strain on the existing non-US infrastructure, but
could actually result in a better designed network (i.e. less reliant on US
bodies).

2\. Yes, blocking access to foreign websites is the whole point of the
legislation. Note that this would only mean that US-based users wouldn't be
able to resolve your .dk, but everybody else (i.e. in Europe or Asia etc)
would still be able to do it.

3\. Good question. Again, this will depend on the technical implementation; I
believe at the moment they're only talking about blocking DNS resolution. The
minute they block IP-based connections, you basically have the Great Firewall
of America in place.

------
jhck
It's a shame that the "piracy is a matter of convenience" argument is
dismissed so quickly. Living in the US you can easily get legal access to lots
of creative content through the web, but for people outside of the US it's a
different story.

~~~
LocalPCGuy
Even in the US, with all the legal means to access content, I wouldn't say it
is always convenient. Studios delay or prohibit sites from showing content, or
require you already have a subscription to a participating cable company
(which in many cases the consumer cannot control whether they are
"participating"), before you can legally get access to much of the content.

Compare this to the ability to download a movie literally days after it is in
the theater, or a show hours after it shows on TV, and then to play it in
whatever manner you choose, instead of being tied to a specific medium by the
company producing the content (for instance, Google TV is blocked by many
"approved" content websites, you HAVE to watch on your computer.)

I'm not advocating the piracy, just showing how much more convenient it really
is. And until the media companies start innovating in how the content is
delivered and can be accessed, piracy will be appealing and more convenient.

One of the biggest problems with ProtectIP/SOPA is that they would stifle the
need for the media companies to innovate, which is exactly what they want. The
media companies do not want to innovate or find better ways, they want the
status quo from 10 years ago.

~~~
jcrites
I think the problem is the natural psychological reaction people have to price
discrimination. For example, what if you could watch a movie online the day
it's released, but it costs $50 per view? People would be upset about that,
even though it's strictly in their interest by giving them an option they
don't have today; it would also be enabling/creating competition in a
"release-day download" market.

Amazon ran experiments like this in the past, offering products at different
prices over short periods of time, according to the person or according to
market factors (supply). There was a huge community backlash against the idea
that price discrimination might be going on.

I don't know what the solution is, but I agree it would be vastly preferable
to me if all content were available immediately and online _at some price_ ,
even if it's a high price. It should never be arbitrarily unavailable.

~~~
Natsu
I take the view that many aspects of human 'irrationality' have their basis in
people trying to avoid being manipulated by others, though they certainly
don't always work.

I don't know how to prove whether or not that's true, but it tends to explain
things like our response to the Ultimatum Game. And that's essentially what
we're dealing with here: people who make deals that are too one-sided (huge
price discrimination, etc.) may trigger a backlash, even if the offer is an
improvement on the status quo.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game>

------
djbender
"A bill that you may have never heard of."

:'(

~~~
sage_joch
"... thanks largely to us."

~~~
earbitscom
At least he pretty much said thanks largely to us and people like us.

