Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed Hammer
Is that supposed to hurt us in some way?
|
He's making the point that if SOPA gets passed, sites like wikipedia could soon be something from the past.
I understand why a lot of people here might at first glance support SOPA. After all, it is called the "Stop Online Piracy Act". But that is merely Washington's way of discrediting the opposition. Why do you thin the Patriot Act was called the 'Patriot' act? Because it was very patriotic? No, because that way everyone who opposed it looked unpatriotic.
SOPA isn't just about shutting down tubes or torrent sites filled with pirated content, it goes much further than that. Under SOPA an IP rights owner can basically order anyone doing business with someone who violates those IP rights to stop doing business (advertising, proving hosting or processing services etc) with the 'violator'.
Under SOPA, the IP rights holder would contact the entity that's doing business with the owner of the sites on which the alleged IP right violation occurred. That entity than has 5 days to contact the site owner. If the site owner has not removed the content within those same 5 days, the entity contacted by the IP rights owner then has to cease doing business (providing services for) the site owner.
No court order or any kind of 3rd party verification or any kind of appeal is needed or possible.
Why are companies like Microsoft, Google, Twitter, Wikipedia,... and groups like the EFF, TechFreedom etc so worried about this? Because entire sites can be taken down that way even if no rights were violated.
SOPA doesn't only cover copyright but also other forms of IP such as reputation rights.
Example: You post on GFY that GFY user XYZA is an idot. XYZA contacts GFY's hosting company, registrar etc and says GFY contains content that violates his IP rights. GFY's hosting company, registrar etc then have 5 days to contact GFY and have that content removed from GFY. If that content is not removed within those 5 days, GFY's hosting company, registrar etc become liable if they do not cease to do business with GFY until the content is removed.
Under SOPA, kids singing popular songs and posting the video on youtube would be no longer possible.
Under SOPA, you could harass your competitor by emailing CCBILL and saying they are billing for someone who uses some of your content (even if it's not true). Of course If it is not true, you could later be held accountable for that, but in the mean time your competitor will be out of billing, hosting, income etc for months or years.
Under SOPA, a politician could harass news site if they expose secrets that he deems damaging to his reputation.
Under SOPA, GFY would be in trouble for all the pictures GFY users regularly post.
Using SOPA to fight piracy is like carpet bombing an entire city because 1 kid is downloading an mp3. It's insane.