SOPA/PIPA, Will Dakka still be open to America

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.

**matphat**

Ponder this kiddies!
If I'm going to ask you for a dollar, and I know you don't want to give me a dollar, what do I do?
I ask for 10 dollars.
Of course you say "NO!", but then, I come back with, "Well, how about just ONE dollar?"
Then, feeling like you are being asked for something much more reasonable, you may just comply.
"Ok, well, since it's just ONE dollar"

I think that SOPA /PIPA is using this ploy. After we deny them this, the will rewrite it all, and then re-submit. It will still be a terrible idea. It will still be a horrible injustice, but it may just get passed for not being "as bad" as the first go round.

Eh?
Ehhhh?

**A Town Called Malus**

martin74 wrote:
ironhandstraken wrote:
██████ ███ ████████ love ███████ ███ ██ █ ███ your █████████ █████ ███████ ███ ██ █ government ██████ obey ██ ████ ██ ███ your █████ leaders.

‎[This comment has been found in violation of H.R. 3261, S.O.P.A and has been edited for your safety.]]

four legs good, two legs better. great quote from a great book that slowly explains how things evolve.

I think 1984 is a more fitting literary comparison here.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:

focusedfire wrote:If the U.S. feels that this is such a problem and that they really have the backing of the majority of other soveriegn states then this should be put before the U.N. as a proposed resolution or as a treaty that nations can sign onto like NATO or the EU.

Frankly, feth the UN. They have no authority over the US. Second, enforcement of our laws are not subject to NATO or EU approval. Third, we've already got agreements with the EU (Berne and TRIPs).

focusedfire wrote:This is because the fundamental base of this law calls for enforcement outside of U.S. juridiction. In essence the law assumes that the rest of the world is subject to U.S. law.

No, actually it doesn't. The law only calls for enforcement of websites that are directed (and accessible) to US users. There's a long line of cases discussing personal jurisdiction and who is subject to that jurisdiction. This law is saying that anyone who reaches out and provides services to users in the US, knowing that those users are from the US, is subject to US jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is only over US companies and ISPs. If you're a Russian company pirating movies from a server hosted in Russia with advertisers located in Russia and your users are from Russian ISPs, then you have absolutely nothing to fear from this statute.

And the US has no authority over the rest of the world, no matter what your politicians believe, so none of your laws should have any impact on the rest of the world.

The internet is not the domain of one country. It exists outside the fabricated borders humanity has created.

Every website on it is accessible by every person connected to it, no matter where in the world they happen to be, so every website is potentially "directed at (and accessible) to US users". With this in mind how can it be argued that a website can legally be shut down (i.e inaccessible to everybody, everywhere) because it is viewable by the people of one country whose laws classify it as illegal.

This law is going to go the same way as the CIA rendition program, another excuse to hate the USA for a lot of countries (and the people in them) around the world.

**martin74**

@ a town called malus, good one. Both work in the overall picture.

**azazel the cat**

I think that many of you are misinterpreting the power that SOPA has. It cannot shut down websites that are not located in the USA, not can it sue companies that are not in the USA without the consent of those websites.

However, it can blacklist those websites from receiving money from US sources, effectively strangling the website. Here's how it works:

Step 1: I own a website, hosted in Russia.

Step 2: I distribute Disney movies in clear violation of US laws.

Step 3: Because I cannot be touched by the US laws, the US will instead attack my revenue stream: if I receive payment for my pirated movies via PayPal, SOPA makes PayPal liable for lawsuits unless they stop allowing me to us their services. This step will continue until my pirating website has no more revenue sources.

Step 4: Lacking revenue, my website shuts down.

The problem with these laws is that they are written for and intended to bully companies into blacklisting websites, and the criteria that must be met in order to do so is so low that almost every website on the Internet is subject to this punishment.

**Haeslich**

We cannot leave that door open. Given the chance those laws will eventually be exploited to surpress the liberty of others. Loopholes leave room for conniving individuals, and time alone will widen those loopholes. As well as widen the interpretations of laws which keep such loopholes in check.

The second amendment is a perfect example. The law may be (I use the word "may" loosely) intended to counter revenue streams of unprosecutable individuals, but it will eventually be used for the censorship of American citizens.

**Trasvi**

Azazel has it about right, except for step 2:

Replace "I distribute Disney movies in clear violation of US laws"
with: "I link to a website which (links to a website which...) distributes copyright material
or "I host a file sharing service which one of my customers uses to upload copyright material"
or "A user posts a copyrighted picture on my chat forums"

Step 1 should also read: "I own a website, hosted in Russia and directed towards US citizens".
But, what defines 'directed towards US citizens?' Anyone can access anything on the internet. Does that mean that any site in the world is directed towards US citizens? Or only the English websites (despite the fact that the US does not have an official language and there are numerous automated translation programs available)

And add to step 3: "The US will also mutilate the DNS system in such a way that access to my website could very well be blocked from ANY country in the world, even If what I am doing is not illegal there."

**DoctorZombie**

azazel the cat wrote:Here's the layman's explanation:

SOPA: Sites are held accountable for all contest posted to the site, irrespective of the source. The language used is SOPA is so broad that if you have a site with Web 2.0 comments enabled, and someone posts a comment that includes a lyric from a song, then your site is liable in civil court, even though you had no control over that content. This bill is in effect like saying that if you are inside my grocery store and someone shoots you, then I am legally accountable for you being shot. SOPA essentially means that every American company with a web site will either be forced to move their company to another country, or else will be forced to remove their web presence if they wish to avoid malicious civil prosecution.

PIPA: Sites hosting information about loopholes in the law and instructions on how to circumvent intellectual property laws will be made illegal, thus violating multiple rights found under the US constitution. Additionally, it allows Internet service provides immunity from both civil and criminal antitrust prosecution if the Internet service provider voluntarily blocks a site. However, the requirements to allow an Internet service provider to voluntarily block sites are so broad that it gives Internet service providers free reign to control which sites are visible. In effect, the Internet service providers would be legally allowed to set up a 'protection racket' to websites. This no more than a thinly veiled 2nd attempt at the Net Neutrality issue, and to quote Hunter S. Thompson, "it reeks of Bastards".

Fortunately, the Obama administration has openly declared that they will not support either of these bills in their current form. Hopefully that declaring can be taken strongly enough to mean that Obama would go so far as to veto both. (Obama gaining the majority of his funding from the Internet)

That would be first thing I would actually like the current administration for doing.