The Science Forum

Jan 18th Wiki Blackout to protest SOPA and PIPA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Learn_more
Apparently there is support and opposition to this on both sides of the aisle in Washington.
I contacted my rep's and notified them of my opposition to both bills.

the irony is that this is happening in what is supposed to be the land of the free
a lot of unfree things appear to be happening in the name of what ? surely not freedom ?

marnixR wrote:the irony is that this is happening in what is supposed to be the land of the free
a lot of unfree things appear to be happening in the name of what ? surely not freedom ?

That's probably because a lot of the fools in power over in the US think that the world revolves around them and that they can get to choose what people do- it is the very opposite of democracy this legislation, it's classical dictatorial tyranny that would be expected in a fascist state.

it's not just wikipedia that gets in on the act

xkcd shows the following screen :



with the following links for those interested

Free Speech is Only as Strong as the Weakest Link
SOPA: Why Do We Have To Break The DNS?
A technical examination of SOPA and PROTECT IP
What’s Wrong With SOPA?

you know what's going to happen if SOPA goes ahead ? all that stuff will move to servers outside the US, so that anyone not living in the US or doing business with the US can do their business unhindered away from the long arm of US legislation - or someone will start a file sharing religion which would then have to be treated with kit gloves, since religion trumps law in the US

marnixR wrote: since religion trumps law in the US

Actually it's money that trumps law in the U.S., also constitutional law and democratic process. Religion is just a psychological control device used by the moneyed elite.

this one is worth a read :

Why SOPA Is Dangerous

what irks me most of all is the presumption that one country, albeit one that is currently dominant in the IT world, thinks it can legislate for the rest of the world

Section 102(a)(2) permits the attorney general to take action against foreign sites (i.e., sites that do not fall under U.S. jurisdiction) if “the owner or operator of such Internet site is facilitating the commission of [copyright infringement].”

<snip>

An `Internet site is dedicated to theft of U.S. property’ if [a portion of the site is US-directed] and is used by users within the United States and is primarily designed or operated for the purpose of offering services in a manner that enables or facilitates [copyright violation or circumvention of copyright protection measures].

Still doesn’t sound that bad, but consider this: Any site that allows users to post content is “primarily designed for the purpose of offering services in a manner that enables copyright violation.” The site doesn’t have to be clearly designed for the purpose of copyright violation; it only has to provide functionality that can be used to enable copyright violation.

never mind YouTube or Facebook, this would mean that any forum where there is a mixture of US and non-US members (like this one) is fair game

+ if you've been found to infringe, the provider has to cut off all services unless they receive a counter-notice from the accused site - but "The only way to provide a counter-notice is to agree to submit to U.S. jurisdiction" - whew! presumption stacked upon presumption

and it gets worse : if you can possibly be painted to fit the definition of an infringing site (and again, you will be), you are now liable for all of the attacking party’s attorney fees
+ ... the accusing party may then serve you (the site owner) with a lawsuit. If they win the lawsuit, then the court will award them ownership of your site (likely, the domain)

in short, this type of law is typical of a totalitarian state, where the laws are written in such a way that no-one can fully comply, making us all into criminals, who can then be picked off whenever it suits the powers-that-be

oh, and another thing that bugs me is the definition of "domestic internet site"

A domestic domain name is defined as a domain registered or assigned by a registrar or other authority that is located within the United States. Some common examples of domestic top-level domain names are '.com', '.org', and '.us'.

it's already bad enough that so many US sites have usurped the international names like .com and .org as if they were their own, but to actually use this as a means of IDENTIFYING domestic sites is gross insensitivity

The part that looks the most worrisome to me is that advertisers can be forced to pull advertising a site found to carry copyrighted material by the copyright holder. I might be misunderstanding that part. The way legislation is written can be quite complicated these days.

Anyway, just think how easy it is to slap-suit-destroy a site then? Have a random user (perhaps one of your own people) post a copyrighted picture on a site that allows user submitted content, and then call up their advertisers and shut them down. Then start your own identical site to fill the new market vacuum while they're putting the pieces back together. People with money just want to be able to use their deep pockets as an "I automatically win" button in the market.

We don't the ability to afford better lawyers to become the sole basis for competition. That won't lead to the desired results.

marnixR wrote:oh, and another thing that bugs me is the definition of "domestic internet site"

A domestic domain name is defined as a domain registered or assigned by a registrar or other authority that is located within the United States. Some common examples of domestic top-level domain names are '.com', '.org', and '.us'.

it's already bad enough that so many US sites have usurped the international names like .com and .org as if they were their own, but to actually use this as a means of IDENTIFYING domestic sites is gross insensitivity

In fairness, there basically is no .us internet. Sure, the prefix exists, but almost all American content is in the .com, .net, and .org

If I want Russian content, typing .ru means something. Using google.ru I can filter out almost all the non-Russian content.

kojax wrote:In fairness, there basically is no .us internet. Sure, the prefix exists, but almost all American content is in the .com, .net, and .org

but then again, so do all international sites, e.g. if a company is spread over various countries worldwide, they adopt a .com rather than (e.g.) .co.uk designation