What is your opinion of SOPA?
- Thread starter maidos
- Start date
Fred Sherman
Well-known member
If someone is violating US copyright laws, thats not censorship; its prosecution. There is no inherent right to break the law, therefore it does not enjoy freedom of expression.
Brent W
Well-known member
That's why you host in nations the USA is scared of. They wouldn't risk upsetting a foreign power that can harm them. Problem solved, plus you don't have to worry about DMCAs or other abused laws. I already do this now and it’s served me well. My website is perfectly legitimate, but I don’t want to be harassed by American corporations for what is, in my country, fair use.
Reverse your argument and say “If someone is violating Chinese law, that’s not censorship; it’s prosecution.” The government of China blocks US websites that are critical of it, because criticism of their government is against their laws. Yet Americans are not bound by the laws of China, so while they are breaking Chinese law they are committing no crime. SOPA is exactly the same; it blocks foreign sites for violating US law even though they committed no crime. It is censorship.
I DO have the right to break US law, because I am not bound by US law. In much the same way a 16 year old in England is not a rapist for having sex with another 16 year old, even though the age of consent in some American states is 18. Your laws only apply to your country, once you apply them outside of your country to foreign citizens it’s censorship.
Fred Sherman
Well-known member
I think you're lost. A Chinese company steals US software and sells it on their website. Turning off access to that website from within the US is not censorship. Directing US companies to not do business with that website is not censorship. You're painting with way too wide a brush. Comparing freedom with expression with theft of intellectual property is not even remotely equivalent.
They didn't steal it; it's not illegal under their laws. There is no difference from a legal perspective, turning off access to a site that is not your own yet violated your law is censorship. It works both ways. China censors the USA, and now the USA wants to censor China.
Fred Sherman
Well-known member
Your logic is that theft of property of US citizens isn't really theft because its not illegal under Chinese law?
I think you've made the case for the need for SOPA perfectly!
I think you've made the case for the need for SOPA perfectly!
No, it’s not illegal to do many things in other countries that are legal in the USA. It’s also illegal for American citizens to do things that are legal in other countries. Art theft is not defined by the Americans; it is defined by each country. If my country believes in fair use, then I WILL exercise that right, and if the USA tries to censor me with SOPA then I will make sure there are consequences for them.
Pereira
Well-known member
The blocking of or forcing removal of those websites from search engines is, by definition, internet censorship. Certain criminal acts are already censored form the internet i.e. certain types of pornography.
I should emphasise I have not read the entire Bill but from my current understanding, it would mean sites like Google wouldn't even be able to appeal the blacklisted sites that they are told to block, which is akin to China's system of internet censorship.
I should emphasise I have not read the entire Bill but from my current understanding, it would mean sites like Google wouldn't even be able to appeal the blacklisted sites that they are told to block, which is akin to China's system of internet censorship.
Digital Doctor
Well-known member
My religion is File Sharing and I am very religious.
SOPA is an direct insult to my faith = Religious discrimination .... a charter violation !!!!
The RIAA should be tried for crimes against humanity.
SOPA is an direct insult to my faith = Religious discrimination .... a charter violation !!!!
The RIAA should be tried for crimes against humanity.
Fred Sherman
Well-known member
Thats not censorship at all. You're playing really loose with definitions.
Lets take a company that produced paint, but that paint had lead in it. We all know lead paint is bad, and that company was forced to remove lead paint from its product. Thats not censorship.
Google produces a product - search results. By court order, certain elements within that product have to be removed because they damage the US economy and violate the law. Thats not censorship. Their product is not "expression" or "speech". It is the result of a patented mathematical algorithm.
Neither was it "censorship", when courts ordered Google that they had to allow for an opt-out of Google Street View.
The rights of the individual take precedence. The individual person has a right to privacy and security. They have a right to be secure in their property and the fruits of their labor.
even on this very site, we've had people describe how their site content, their styles, the results of their work was stolen by others. They had no recourse. Now, if they are in the US, they have a recourse, they have protection. Sorry, I don't see that as bad.
I think the bill needs work. I think SOPA was a big improvement over ProtectIP. I think the Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade Act Is just a bit too soft, but also much better overall. Take some of the elements of SOPA to give it a little more teeth and claws and that will likely be the net result.
Let me know how that works out for you. Aren't you violating your own point? You want to provide consequences for the US for doing something that is legal in the US? Your logic is starting to unravel.
Fred Sherman
Well-known member
My karma runs over your dogma.
Digital Doctor
Well-known member
Sweden recognises new file-sharing religion Kopimism
A "church" whose central tenet is the right to file-share has been formally recognised by the Swedish government.
The Church of Kopimism claims that "kopyacting" - sharing information through copying - is akin to a religious service.
The "spiritual leader" of the church said recognition was a "large step".
But others were less enthusiastic and said the church would do little to halt the global crackdown on piracy.
File-sharing is a religious ceremony according to the church leader
A "church" whose central tenet is the right to file-share has been formally recognised by the Swedish government.
The Church of Kopimism claims that "kopyacting" - sharing information through copying - is akin to a religious service.
The "spiritual leader" of the church said recognition was a "large step".
But others were less enthusiastic and said the church would do little to halt the global crackdown on piracy.
I already host my content in a country that the USA is afraid of. Because of this they won’t dare take action against me for violating US law. But why do I do this? It’s not because I host a pirate site, no. It’s because I host an RPG. Individuals who use commercial art for their personal non-commercial profile pictures have a clause of fair use, but in the USA they do not. SOPA is not going to prevent piracy; it will do absolutely no good whatsoever. It will be very easy to bypass because all you’ll need to do is enter the IP address of the server.
Furthermore, your example on lead paint is flawed. If a company is accused of adding lead to their paint proof is required, otherwise this is slander. Yet if a website is accused of piracy no proof is required under SOPA. If a company places lead in its paint and is banned from trade, they still exist and are not hidden from view. Yet if a website is banned under SOPA they will disappear, not just the site, but from search results themselves. A paint manufacturer found guilty of selling lead paint can still have a website which can be visited, a website blocked by SOPA will not. That’s not even mentioning the fact that selling lead paint is a health risk, while piracy laws are different in each country as I explained above. Taking art for personal use can be blocked under SOPA, yet is not immoral in itself nor does it cause a loss of life or even profit.
If you seriously think there is no recourse for people who have had their work stolen right now you are mistaken. There is recourse. They can take action and prosecute the individual in question, if they accord with the laws of both nations. With the Berne Convention almost every country in the world has some method by which action can be taken. To say “It’s too difficult to take legal action, let’s just censor them” is not only a violation of the base principle of justice (innocent until proven guilty), but also immoral.
Furthermore, your example on lead paint is flawed. If a company is accused of adding lead to their paint proof is required, otherwise this is slander. Yet if a website is accused of piracy no proof is required under SOPA. If a company places lead in its paint and is banned from trade, they still exist and are not hidden from view. Yet if a website is banned under SOPA they will disappear, not just the site, but from search results themselves. A paint manufacturer found guilty of selling lead paint can still have a website which can be visited, a website blocked by SOPA will not. That’s not even mentioning the fact that selling lead paint is a health risk, while piracy laws are different in each country as I explained above. Taking art for personal use can be blocked under SOPA, yet is not immoral in itself nor does it cause a loss of life or even profit.
If you seriously think there is no recourse for people who have had their work stolen right now you are mistaken. There is recourse. They can take action and prosecute the individual in question, if they accord with the laws of both nations. With the Berne Convention almost every country in the world has some method by which action can be taken. To say “It’s too difficult to take legal action, let’s just censor them” is not only a violation of the base principle of justice (innocent until proven guilty), but also immoral.
Pereira
Well-known member
When government can order the removal of a website from an internet search engine without any right for them to appeal (due process), that is censorship yes.
Wherever you get your definition of censorship, I would like to see it.
There are already bilateral copyright treaties in place, (even with China) such as WIPO copyright treaty. In fact, this is in the current DMCA as far as I'm aware.
Looking at the Bill, it still doesn't seem to have any effect on offshore hosts and DNS's. So no, they wouldn't always have a remedy for recourse which is why this Bill is bad i.e. it doesn't stop what it's trying to stop.
Wherever you get your definition of censorship, I would like to see it.
There are already bilateral copyright treaties in place, (even with China) such as WIPO copyright treaty. In fact, this is in the current DMCA as far as I'm aware.
Looking at the Bill, it still doesn't seem to have any effect on offshore hosts and DNS's. So no, they wouldn't always have a remedy for recourse which is why this Bill is bad i.e. it doesn't stop what it's trying to stop.
Fred Sherman
Well-known member
I don't care if your switches are Cisco, Brocade, Juniper or any other manufacturer. You do realize that I can configure a switch to shutdown traffic to any site and using its IP doesn't bypass it. In fact, if I want to be truly draconian, I can strip the IP header and reprocess the packet just to make sure it isn't encapsulated. This is another internet myth - and I blame Vixie for this one - that you can't stop traffic to a site. I do it quite often when I set up isolated networks for the DoD.
In other words you want to configure a switch to not be able to route to a specific IP address. Your method isn’t fool proof, since IP addresses still require a database (directions to said address). Systems will try to optimize by having the fewest amount of hops. Even if SOPA had their own router that let them effectively alter, inject, and redirect packages, there are still hundreds of other routers and servers out there.
The way the bill is written right now, however, only allows them to block domains. Not only would they have to change the bill to support harsher blocking (by IP) but they'd also have to force hardware manufacturers to support it. Now you’re talking about forms of censorship that even nations with national firewalls do not bother with!
And in future don’t try to use the 'blinding with science' fallacy and expect nobody to call you out on it.
Fred Sherman
Well-known member
It doesn't have to be all routers. The core switches not he US backbone segment is all that is necessary. There are only five Tier 1 backbone providers, although I would argue that Verizon's wireless network is robust enough to include it as the 6th and first "wireless backbone".
Hardware vendors already support it. Cisco, for example, implements it in its Context based Access Control. Juniper switches have a few different ways of setting it up in ScreenOS. Its been there for years. There's nothing new about it.
This is not a technical challenge. Joe Six Pack isn't going to circumvent it with an IP address. Its a logistical challenge and affording the providers only 5 days to implement a court order is too little time. 30 days seems far more reasonable.
Hardware vendors already support it. Cisco, for example, implements it in its Context based Access Control. Juniper switches have a few different ways of setting it up in ScreenOS. Its been there for years. There's nothing new about it.
This is not a technical challenge. Joe Six Pack isn't going to circumvent it with an IP address. Its a logistical challenge and affording the providers only 5 days to implement a court order is too little time. 30 days seems far more reasonable.
Onimua
Well-known member
So are the proposed bills, except those loose definitions would then become law.
