Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The Dreadnote wrote:No more so than missile parades and giant paper flags, surely?

I was commenting on the structure of the article, not on the fact that well, North Korea is crazy.

Also, it's a parody news site. Like the onion, but not as funny.

Wikipedia makes me smart, Photoshop makes me look good.

I guess I will just have a "Good looking but dumb"-day...

Photobucket can be taken down by SOPA if it passes.

If a single copyright holder says photobucket violates its rights-- without actually proving that it does in a court of law I should note, and without contacting photobucket, and without contacting the user that uploaded the image-- then bam, no more photobucket.

As I said, this is a piece gak law pushed by pieces of gak in congress because piece of gak corporations and their piece of gak executives want to cut down competition and dominate the market flooding it with their pieces of gak and rubbing their gak all over your face. And I don't even have to exaggerate anything to say that.

I want to claim internet citizenship.

...But keep my NHS benefits 'n' all that jib.

Oh and not get deported!

At first I was against SOPA.

After reading the bill I'm not so sure it's really that bad.

But but but... without wikipedia for a day how will the American educational system survive!? ROFL

Hope Congress gets the message in regards to net neutrality. SOPA/PIPA is what, Congress 3rd/4th attempt in the past year to censor or moderate the web?

biccat wrote:At first I was against SOPA.

After reading the bill I'm not so sure it's really that bad.

Just the death of the entire new media industry. No big deal.

There are a lot of companies that are opposed to innovation and new technology because it would force them to change their business models. Therefor they throw money at congress instead, effectively asking for handouts and subsidies in the form of being legally allowed to make anti-competitive actions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:At first I was against SOPA.

After reading the bill I'm not so sure it's really that bad.

So being able to force a site to shut down, without having to contact the site which hosts the supposed copyright infringement (which doesn't have to be proved), without having to contact the user who posted the supposed copyright infringement (which I repeat doesn't have to be proved) is okay to you? A law which basically enforces guilty until proven innocent-- forcing sites to prove their innocence before he court of law-- is okay to you?

Games Workshop could use SOPA/PIPA to take down Dakka as Dakka is right now. They could also take down Bell of Lost Souls, From the Warp, Goatboy's blog, Hog of War, Heresy Online, Bolter and Chainsword, Warseer, Lexicanum, 40k Wikia, Wikipedia, and plenty of other websites by using the "vigilante provision". SOPA is an anti-competitive law to the extreme.

Melissia wrote:Games Workshop could use SOPA/PIPA to take down Dakka as Dakka is right now. They could also take down Bell of Lost Souls, From the Warp, Goatboy's blog, Hog of War, Heresy Online, Bolter and Chainsword, Warseer, Lexicanum, 40k Wikia, Wikipedia, and plenty of other websites by using the "vigilante provision". SOPA is an anti-competitive law to the extreme.

It's not just Games Workshop that could take Dakka down. Most Youtube videos shown are copyright infringement, and linking to a site that has any copyright infringement will get you taken down.

So, if you have a single link to Twitter or Facebook or Youtube or Photobucket or any one of a billion different sites, your site gets wiped.

SOPA would wipe out the internet in the US.

If SOPA or PIPA pass, I intend on posting as much copyrighted content on websites public websites owned by corporations that supported the bill as possible.

reds8n wrote:http://newsthump.com/2012/01/18/north-korea-claims-responsibility-for-wikipedia-blackout/

From the link.

The blow has already led to outbreaks of oppressive communist dogma in parts of Surrey,

That means there is a communist dogma and a non-communist dogma, which dogma is our dogma?

1. Post Anti-SOPA status on FB.
2. Wake up to an inbox full of accusations of piracy and "I hate your kind" ranting.
3. ???
4. Good lord, people are stupid.

It seems like the only people who have a clue what the bill is about are the people against it. Irony at its finest.

wikipedia is still working on mobile devices

Melissia wrote:

biccat wrote:At first I was against SOPA.

After reading the bill I'm not so sure it's really that bad.

So being able to force a site to shut down, without having to contact the site which hosts the supposed copyright infringement (which doesn't have to be proved), without having to contact the user who posted the supposed copyright infringement (which I repeat doesn't have to be proved) is okay to you? A law which basically enforces guilty until proven innocent-- forcing sites to prove their innocence before he court of law-- is okay to you?

The only way a site could be "shut down" is by action of the Attorney General. And only if "the site would, by reason of acts described in paragraph (1), be subject to seizure in the United States in an action brought by the Attorney General if such site were a domestic Internet site." (Acts described in paragraph 1 are access and use by US residents).

Once the AG determines that the website is a problem he can commence an action in personam (fulfilling the notice requirement) or in rem only if the owner/registrant is outside the US. Even if commenced in rem, the AG must send proper notice to the registrant.

After that, the case proceeds in court as normal.

Melissia wrote:Games Workshop could use SOPA/PIPA to take down Dakka as Dakka is right now. They could also take down Bell of Lost Souls, From the Warp, Goatboy's blog, Hog of War, Heresy Online, Bolter and Chainsword, Warseer, Lexicanum, 40k Wikia, Wikipedia, and plenty of other websites by using the "vigilante provision". SOPA is an anti-competitive law to the extreme.

No they couldn't. The private remedy under this act is only available for a site "dedicated to theft of U.S. Property." The site must be "primarily designed or operated for the purpose of [engaging in or facilitating copyright infringement]" or "is taking...deliberate actions to avoid confirming a high probability of [copyright infringement]" or "operates the U.S.-directed site with the object of promoting [copyright infringement]".

Dakka is well within the safe harbor here.

(1) DEDICATED TO THEFT OF U.S. PROPERTY- An ‘Internet site is dedicated to theft of U.S. property’ if--

(A) it is an Internet site, or a portion thereof, that is a U.S.-directed site and is used by users within the United States; and

(B) either--

(i) the U.S.-directed site is primarily designed or operated for the purpose of, has only limited purpose or use other than, or is marketed by its operator or another acting in concert with that operator for use in, offering goods or services in a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates--

(I) a violation of section 501 of title 17, United States Code;

(II) a violation of section 1201 of title 17, United States Code; or

(III) the sale, distribution, or promotion of goods, services, or materials bearing a counterfeit mark, as that term is defined in section 34(d) of the Lanham Act or section 2320 of title 18, United States Code; or

(ii) the operator of the U.S.-directed site--

(I) is taking, or has taken, deliberate actions to avoid confirming a high probability of the use of the U.S.-directed site to carry out acts that constitute a violation of section 501 or 1201 of title 17, United States Code; or

(II) operates the U.S.-directed site with the object of promoting, or has promoted, its use to carry out acts that constitute a violation of section 501 or 1201 of title 17, United States Code, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement

How does the act prevent abuse? All an owner has to do, upon receiving notice, is submit a counter-notice. This counter-notice only requires your name, address, consent to US jurisdiction over the issue and a statement that your site is not "dedicated to theft of US property."

SOPA is the US reaching out to assume jurisdiction over a large swathes of the internet, but it's not as evil as it is being made out to be.

biccat has the only reasonable argument so far on SOPA on forums and such that I've seen.

If you read the bill (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-3261) there are many, many provisions that have to be met before sites can be blocked. Simply hosting a youtube video will not shut down the internet as people are claiming.

AustonT wrote:wikipedia is still working on mobile devices

Or just disable javascript for the wikipedia site in your browser and use as normal.

So, you cut down priacy on the Internet. Great.... I guess..

What do they plan to do about physical content piracy then? Shut down China?

I think it's a stupid bill. If it's passed, I doubt it will be anything like the sky is falling scenarios going around, but it will still suck. It will mess up a lot of perfectly legit websites though, if anything because those site owners will panic, and all the while pirates will still pirate and nothing on that side of the fence will ever change.

In the end, it just feels like media companies trying to walk all over everyone.

If they really wanna protest it, I'd rather see sites like Google not working for or blocking links to anything on timewarner.com or whatever. With a little message saying we're blocking this content because we think these guys suck, even if it's just for 1 day.

biccat,

What you've posted there sounds identical to what I thought the procedures for DMCA complaints were. Why do content providers need another piece of legislature that performs an identical function? Either you're wrong, or many large companies (with legal teams on standby) have mistakenly interpreted the bills to be more harmful than they are.

Also, your interpretation that

Dakka is well within the safe harbor here.

, while probably accurate, depends upon Dakka being able to survive, financially, a court case long enough for the judge to determine this, along with any appeals process necessary. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm somewhat aware of how much they cost. I do not believe that yak/lego are getting paid to run the site, so I doubt they have their own legal fund prepared to deal with such things. I mean, look at what happened with bloodbowl40k and the other sites that got shut down whenever that was (a year ago?). They didn't have money to fight it, so they folded.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Necros wrote:I think it's a stupid bill. If it's passed, I doubt it will be anything like the sky is falling scenarios going around, but it will still suck.

Wait for trolls to start dropping copywritten material onto sites everywhere.

I'm picturing a particularly dystopic case where new attacks on websites switch from being centered around the goal being a DDOS or stealing data, but instead just try to slip IP in subtle enough places.

You guys need to do better research about the bill, honestly.

What it comes down to is this - does your website have the ability to link to other sites? Yeah? You can be seen as a site that "CAN" harbor piracy, and you instantly become a felon according to the bill.

The issue many of you pro-SOPA bill people assume is that the people in power, politicians, media moguls, etc, have the moral fortitude to ALWAYS do what is best for YOUR interest, you are out of your mind, or you must live in a different dimension.

Keep on assuming that those in power care about you in any form, and will use this bill to combat the guy who copies Skyrim and torrents it, and never the guy who links to a youtube landing page with a song on it.

BuFFo wrote:You guys need to do better research about the bill, honestly.

How can I? Wikipedia is gone!

daedalus wrote:What you've posted there sounds identical to what I thought the procedures for DMCA complaints were. Why do content providers need another piece of legislature that performs an identical function? Either you're wrong, or many large companies (with legal teams on standby) have mistakenly interpreted the bills to be more harmful than they are.

I've done DMCA notice and takedown requests, so hopefully that lends some credibility to my comments.

When you send a DMCA letter it is sent to the provider (that's actually hosting your website) informing them that someone on their host is infringing your copyrights. The host is then required to remove the infringing material under US law. However, if your provider/host is not physically located in the US (surprisingly less likely than you would think), then there is no authority under the DMCA.

Sites like The Pirate Bay (I assume) have an international host and so they aren't under the authority of the DMCA. This bill will provide two ways to combat piracy:
1) prohibit advertisers and payment providers (e.g. Visa, AMEX, etc.) located in the US from providing services to these sites; and
2) remove domain name registration from these sites (ICANN being under US jurisdiction).

The idea behind these two approaches is that organizations pirating material will no longer be able to receive financial gain and it will make the companies more difficult to access. Sure you'll still be able to access The Pirate Bay by it's IP address, but it will be more difficult. Plus, TPB will be less able to receive revenue from advertisers, donors, or purchasers of their content (assuming they sell subscriptions or something).

daedalus wrote:Also, your interpretation that

Dakka is well within the safe harbor here.

, while probably accurate, depends upon Dakka being able to survive, financially, a court case long enough for the judge to determine this, along with any appeals process necessary. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm somewhat aware of how much they cost. I do not believe that yak/lego are getting paid to run the site, so I doubt they have their own legal fund prepared to deal with such things. I mean, look at what happened with bloodbowl40k and the other sites that got shut down whenever that was (a year ago?). They didn't have money to fight it, so they folded.

That's what we in the industry call "ordinary business risk." There's always a risk that someone is going to sue you on some groundless claim that you'll have to defend. This bill doesn't make it any more or less likely that GW will come after Dakka. If they did, I'd be happy to lend my services pro bono to Yak and Lego to provide a counter notification.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BuFFo wrote:you instantly become a felon according to the bill.

This is just wrong. It's not a criminal statute.

biccat wrote:
SOPA is the US reaching out to assume jurisdiction over a large swathes of the internet, but it's not as evil as it is being made out to be.

This is basically my opinion as well, but, you know, rhetoric has its uses.

filbert wrote:

AustonT wrote:wikipedia is still working on mobile devices

Or just disable javascript for the wikipedia site in your browser and use as normal.

I would not have thought of that, or using a mobile devise for that matter. I just flipped through my open windows and noticed it was working.

biccat wrote:
I've done DMCA notice and takedown requests, so hopefully that lends some credibility to my comments.

When you send a DMCA letter it is sent to the provider (that's actually hosting your website) informing them that someone on their host is infringing your copyrights. The host is then required to remove the infringing material under US law. However, if your provider/host is not physically located in the US (surprisingly less likely than you would think), then there is no authority under the DMCA.

Sites like The Pirate Bay (I assume) have an international host and so they aren't under the authority of the DMCA. This bill will provide two ways to combat piracy:
1) prohibit advertisers and payment providers (e.g. Visa, AMEX, etc.) located in the US from providing services to these sites; and
2) remove domain name registration from these sites (ICANN being under US jurisdiction).

The idea behind these two approaches is that organizations pirating material will no longer be able to receive financial gain and it will make the companies more difficult to access. Sure you'll still be able to access The Pirate Bay by it's IP address, but it will be more difficult. Plus, TPB will be less able to receive revenue from advertisers, donors, or purchasers of their content (assuming they sell subscriptions or something).

This is really interesting. Thank you for posting the difference between the two. I wonder, then, if this is so benign and worry is overblown, why so many corporations, which surely have legal teams that have reviewed the bills, have risen up in protest of it. I mean, Google, sure, I understand. It increases the amount of overhead they have to cope with. But Valve? Razer Gaming?

From a technical standpoint then, since ICANN is the global manager of domain names, and most DNS servers eventually fall back to root DNS servers that use the list based upon ICANN, a concern becomes that the US is impacting "businesses" that operate and exist outside of the US boundaries in the name of preventing something that is technically quite legal in their country. That rubs me the wrong way, and I'm American.

Have you contacted your Senators to help fight PIPA? I have, and you should to. As a citizen, it's your duty! ONLY YOU CAN SAVE THE INTERNET!

LoneLictor wrote:Have you contacted your Senators to help fight PIPA? I have, and you should to. As a citizen, it's your duty! ONLY YOU CAN SAVE THE INTERNET!

There's no reason to stop at contacting your representatives. Duplicity has a storied history in American politics.

I call my representatives once a day, I started a telephonic sexual relationship with one of the aides in Senator McCain's office (not really)

If Google, eBay, Twitter and Facebook were really against SOPA as they say they are, they'd be blacked out as well. But they're not.

daedalus wrote:This is really interesting. Thank you for posting the difference between the two. I wonder, then, if this is so benign and worry is overblown, why so many corporations, which surely have legal teams that have reviewed the bills, have risen up in protest of it. I mean, Google, sure, I understand. It increases the amount of overhead they have to cope with. But Valve? Razer Gaming?

This pretty much explains it:

dogma wrote:rhetoric has its uses

Also, if you've got good enough copy protection you don't need to worry about pirates. In fact, it might be nice to have pirates drive your competitors out of business.

daedalus wrote:From a technical standpoint then, since ICANN is the global manager of domain names, and most DNS servers eventually fall back to root DNS servers that use the list based upon ICANN, a concern becomes that the US is impacting "businesses" that operate and exist outside of the US boundaries in the name of preventing something that is technically quite legal in their country. That rubs me the wrong way, and I'm American.

The response to this would be that any company that operates and exists outside of the US boundaries should not attempt to extend their business into the United States if those activities are illegal here. That's why the act requires "the Internet site or portion thereof is a U.S.-directed site and is used by users in the United States."

Hypothetically: just because recasting is legal in China doesn't give you the right to import your materials into the United States where it is illegal.*
* ignoring all of the legal issues of recasting and whether it's actually legal in China or the United States