Online copyright laws won't prevent a flourishing Internet
This is an opinion piece I wrote (with significant help from Andrew Kline) regarding the new Stop Online Piracy Act that was introduced in the House Judiciary Committee this week. My thanks to Politico for being the first publication to publish it. I'm hoping others in the mainstream press will do the same. In the meantime, I have pasted it below.
Opinion: Online copyright laws won't prevent a flourishing Internet
By Christine Jones
10/28/11 11:01 AM EDT
This
week, the House of Representatives introduced its long-awaited bill,
H.R. 3261 (the Stop Online Piracy Act), aimed at protecting the
intellectual property of hard-working Americans, U.S. business and the
American public from the harm that necessarily flows from the purchase
of counterfeit products.
It's a welcome step in the right direction, and we at GoDaddy.com
applaud the leadership in the House Judiciary Committee, the House
Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Competition and the
Internet and the Senate Judiciary Committee, for taking decisive,
bicameral and bipartisan action.
The debate about the
contents of this bill, and its companion bill in the Senate, the PROTECT
IP Act, has been heated in recent weeks, as companies within the
Internet ecosystem have rallied to lobby against the passage of
legislation which might hold us accountable.
That myopic view has never been shared by Go Daddy.
In
our view, Internet policy should strive to balance the sometimes
competing goals of the global free flow of information (which is clearly
critical to U.S. businesses), with enforcement of the rule of law. We
don't see those competing goals as mutually exclusive, but rather,
complimentary. In fact, that balance is essential to a flourishing, yet
safe, Internet.
Why some members of the Internet ecosystem do
not believe it is their responsibility to participate in finding that
balance is unclear to us. We've found that balance in the past in the
child protection and counterfeit pharmaceuticals contexts, for example,
where we voluntarily take action against customers whose websites or
domain names violate the law. So far, none of our voluntary action has
stifled legitimate capitalism online. And neither will robust
intellectual property enforcement.
The question should be
how, not whether, we develop a notice and takedown regime in a
responsible and responsive way. At Go Daddy, we are proud of our best
practices and believe that they exemplify a model for the rest of the
ecosystem. In 2010, we voluntarily took action and shut down more than
30,000 illegal online pharmacies. And, I spend a great deal of my
working (and non-working) hours each day working to keep the Internet a
better and safer place, especially for children.
And we are responsive to intellectual property holders, even absent a clear mandate by Congress to take action.
And we are responsive to intellectual property holders, even absent a clear mandate by Congress to take action.
This debate does not have to be
paralyzing. We certainly shouldn't be suppressing free speech, but the
Internet should not function as the Wild West either. We need to be
focused on developing codes of conduct that reflect compromise. To do
this, everyone in the Internet ecosystem needs to be committed to taking
voluntary action. And everyone must understand that if we are unwilling
to act responsibly, that Congress has a duty to step in.
While
increasing demands on intermediaries are less than desirable for all of
us, we can't just turn a blind eye to illegal conduct online. If we
don't want the government to be the gate-keeper, then we have to set
expectations for ourselves. And those expectations must respect the
predicament that U.S. businesses and American consumers are facing —
that they are getting duped, that their intellectual property is being
stolen and that the Internet ecosystem has a duty to help.
As
the debate intensifies in the coming weeks, I hope that all of us in
the Internet ecosystem can work together to solve this problem. That is,
after all, the American way. And it is the only way forward.
Christine Jones is the general counsel and corporate secretary of GoDaddy.com.
It is extremely disconcerting that certain players in the Internet ecosystem would oppose this legislation - especially since it is (sadly) one of the few bi-partisan initiatives in the current political climate. Exactly who are these naysayers who would deny legal protection to the established rights of fellow Americans? Because that is precisely what they are doing. Exactly who are these naysayers who would have us disregard the rule of law simply because it is inconvenient? Does this not ultimately create a slippery slope whereby we start to overlook the enforcement of other rights simply because it is inconvenient? Shame on those who voice such opposition and refuse to act like responsible adults.
Reply to this
After two days of solid criticism, it's nice to see I'm not the only person on the Internet who care about the intellectual property rights of third parties.
Thanks for your support,
Atty Jones
Reply to this
What's more disconcerting is to see people I do business with buy hook, line, and sinker into the idea that the cost of protecting intellectual property is my constitutional rights. I'll be moving my domains for my businesses away from GoDaddy this week.
Reply to this
First of all, "certain players in the Internet ecosystem"?? The survey is currently 4.1% like and over 95% dislike.
Calling SOPA a "bi-partisan initiative" is a laughable argument - a bad law is a bad law regardless of which politicians sponsored it. SOPA is an unbelievably BAD law. It's like using a shotgun to go after a swarm of bees - and the bees you're aiming at are in a completely different country. It's a Really Bad Idea. Furthermore the law operates without any court finding that there actually *is* any infringement at all. So you're firing a shotgun into a completely different country and ignoring the fact that some of the pellets will inevitably go flying into innocent schoolyards. You can't indiscriminately overlook the rights of innocent people merely because it is the most CONVENIENT way to go after infringement. The ends do not justify the means.
I'm not sure if this is still in the latest draft of SOPA, but my favorite part is the anti-speech clause. The "circumvention" clause making it illegal for people to write and publish instructions helping innocent people find non-infringing materials. Whether I write those instructions in English language, French language, or a Programming language, that is SPEECH. And that is SPEECH directed to innocent people looking for entirely legal content. You can't violates the rights of innocent people merely because it is the most CONVENIENT method of attempting to reduce infringement. The ends do not justify the means.
Just because SOPA supporters want to combat copyright infringement does NOT mean SOPA is a good law. It does not mean SOPA is a reasonable law. It does not mean SOPA is a remotely sane law. SOPA supporters are full of manure when they imply, or outright argue, that SOPA opponents are pro-piracy.
Shame on you for supporting this abominable bill.
Reply to this
Dear Alsee-
Reply to this
Two issues you fail to address in your defense of SOPA are whether it would be effective in reducing so called "IP theft" and and the dangers to civil rights presented by having a system in place for "blocking" access to a website.
Internet filesharing is, for the same reasons it is so widespread, notoriously difficult to stop. The actual sharing is trivial, and fighting one way of finding files being shared won't change that. A lot of avid sharers are very technically talented and could find ways to bypass the restrictions implemented by SOPA quickly. Look at DRM and CSS for examples of ineffective methods of controlling what media customers do with content. Additionally, removing links to unauthorized files will be futile. Filesharing communities spread by word of mouth, most users of The Pirate Bay didn't find it by searching for the latest episode of their favorite show, they heard about it from their friends or in news articles, blog posts, or online discussions.
The worrisome part abut SOPA is that it establishes a system for interrupting and slowing the free flow of information. SOPA does not provide for proper due process in the way something of its nature should. The more effective this bill would be, the more danger it presents. The chances of non-infringing sites being blacklisted is high enough to be worrisome, and the burden is unfairly put upon the owner of a blacklisted site to show it was erroneously listed. The existence of a system to block access to information, even if it is originally limited to certain information such as that covered by copyright laws, is not something most people support.
The internet “IP theft” problem isn't one caused by a lack of strict copyright laws, it is a problem of incompatible culture and business models. The idea that people are “stealing” others' “intellectual property,” and the language used to discuss it, shows this. The internet allows for free exchange of ideas and information, which has catalyzed cultural changes. Companies that deal in intellectual “property,” however, have attempted to restrict and prevent these changes rather than adapt. That's a losing battle, and legislation that tries to fight that battle benefits no one. Respecting the free flow of information and enforcing the rule of copyright law can't be done at the same time, and certainly not on the internet as it is today.
Reply to this
Dear Unibot-
First, thank you for taking time to give thoughtful comments. Most of what we are seeing is either 1) rhetoric, 2) regurgitated lobbying spin, 3) criticism of language we have already fixed, or 4) retweets by people who like to steal music and buy fake, but cheap, goods. So, we appreciate your efforts here.
As for stopping file-sharing, you are absolutely correct. Savvy technologists will always find a way to share files. The intent of SOPA is not to stop the legitimate exchange of ideas or files. On the contrary, the specific language in the Bill only addresses those sites that are dedicated to infringement. What it will do is address foreign sites that enable counterfeit, infringing and stolen goods to flow back into the US to be either disabled or filtered. That, in fact, will help reduce IP theft. We have provided the Judiciary Committee with language we feel will improve the definitions in the Bill to address both your concern (about sharing) and ours (about the technology used to accomplish it).
On the due process question, we believe we have suggested sufficient tweaks to the language to set forth, even more clearly than it is now (and frankly, it's already pretty clear), the process by which these issues should be addressed so that there is absolutely no question on the due process concern. No one wants to create a system that would do an end run around the due process protections in the constitution. That was not the intent of SOPA and we think that issue will be addressed to satisfaction in the final version.
The concern you raise about the free flow of information being incompatible with enforcing copyright laws is inapposite here. At least, if we understand your post properly, it appears to be. The DMCA already addresses the domestic copyright issue. It has been put to good use for over a decade and, so far, has not caused the Internet to break nor has it even slightly damaged the free flow of information. But, SOPA is not a "copyright protection" bill, per se. It is an effort to combat the free flow of counterfeit and infringing materials that flow from other countries into the US every day. We would not, as a society, be offended by efforts to stop that type of activity offline, and we should not object to it in the online context, either.
While we have been widely quoted as supporting the Bill, we understand, and have communicated to the people who drafted it, that it needs some important changes before it can be made law. We will continue to work to perfect it rather than spewing ad hominem attacks against the people who don't share our views, spending huge amounts of money to publish full page ads in major newspapers, and blanketing Capitol Hill will efforts to kill the Bill entirely. Making law requires compromise, and we prefer to get to a good version of an imperfect solution than have what exists pushed through without giving it thoughtful feedback.
We see, probably more than most companies, the effects of counterfeit and infringing products every day. Whether it's fake baby formula that contains ingredients that harm babies, or sub-standard Christmas tree lights that cause electrical fires and burn down houses, or fake medicines that, God forbid, cause people to die, we must find ways to fix this problem. I have testified in Congress, and I will repeat here, that there is no silver bullet. No solution is perfect, nor is any piece of legislation. However, if we can all strive together to make small incremental steps of progress, we can improve the plight of those who wish to avail themselves of commerce on the Internet. And, although we don't know each other, I suspect you would agree with me, at least on that point.
Again, thank you for your post,
AttyJones
Reply to this
Personally, I trust the EFF far more than industry lobbyists for determining whether or not a law will negatively affect and/or prevent a flourishing Internet.
Reply to this
It's time we start being for something and stop being against something. Great post Atty Jones
Reply to this
Perhaps unlike the previous poster, I actually value the concept of intellectual property and believe it can survive. I see it as an empowering personal right. However, the negative attitude towards intellectual property that so many have today does not arise simply from entitled people who believe they should have everything for free. In large part, it arises from what, in my view, are significant abuses the intent of the Copyright Clause of the US Constitution. That is, the promotion of "the Progress of Science and useful Arts" is actually hindered by the suffocation of entries into the public domain, unreasonable restrictions on use, and the confusing transition towards license based transactions.
The interest of corporate media producers includes creating a high bar of entry towards self-publishing, and that has a negative overall effect.
The technical ineptitude and lack of understanding of the committee is largely illustrated by the rejection of amendment #4 by Mr. Polis. Further, the defense clause provided by 102(c)(4)(C)
is of limited use, as those who lack the resources to enforce the requirements will lack the money to fight in court. They will be easily pressured into an unfavorable settlement.
There is something fundamently disturbing about criminalizing the conversion of names to numbers in the circumventing clause.
Sec 104 is presented as a 'safe harbor' but is really just an encouragement for service providers to block suspicious sites early and often. Of course these suspicions could be completely incorrect, and speech is hindered.
So here we have a non-trivial piece of legislation that will have a negligible effect on the most willfull legal behavior. That's a problem. It's not worth signing into law.
Why is there nothing for the public good in this law? Nothing about works no longer available or maintained from the current rights holder? Nothing to strengthen academic or critical reasons of fair-use.
If we should be so 'pro market,' why are we protecting companies from global arbitrage?
Reply to this
Dear arparp-
Since Go Daddy has withdrawn its support for SOPA today, it is not necessary for me to respond to each point you make. I do think you may have a fundamental misunderstanding of the legal protections that exist in the US around intellectual property. Either that, or your issue is much bigger than SOPA and goes to the very heart of IP laws.
I appreciate your concern and like others, encourage you to suggest specific alternative language to help improve the bill.
Thanks for your post,
AttyJones
Reply to this
Ms. Jones,
I would love to discuss this at length with you, but as your interest has waned. I will *try* to be brief:
I cannot be sure I lack a "fundamental misunderstanding" about anything-- heck, I don't even have an undergrad degree. I might, however, have slightly better understanding than you give me credit for. Consider this-
"As [...] the Constitution makes plain, it is Congress that has been assigned the task of defining the scope of the limited monopoly that should be granted to authors or to inventors in order to give the public appropriate access to their work product. Because this task involves a difficult balance between the interests of authors and inventors in the control and exploitation of their writings and discoveries on the one hand, and society's competing interest in the free flow of ideas, information, and commerce on the other hand, our patent and copyright statutes have been amended repeatedly." - Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 429 (1984)
I simply believe that Congress has shown little legislative concern for "society's competing interest." I believe this lack of concern hurts the credibility and acceptance of intellectual property by the public.
I hate being told to 'read things' to learn someone's argument, but I'm a hypocrite: please consider Professor (and copyright law text co-author) Lydia Loren's 1997(!) article "Redefining the Market Failure Approach to Fair Use in an Era of Copyright Permission Systems" ( http://legacy.lclark.edu/~loren/articles/fairuse.htm )
Also, consider Siva Vaidhyanathan's "Copyrights and Copywrongs," despite occasional irritations arising from it being written by a non-law scholar.
Thanks for your time,
arparp
Reply to this
Dear arparp-
Reply to this
The fact that you think US should have any legislative or juridical control over foreign sites is ludicris. Stop buying politicians to support idiocy. Online piracy isn't even a proven negative thing as more and more studies seem to prove the opposite.
If a US site breaks a US law then fine, go after it through current laws. If an international site breaks US laws thats none of your business.
The age of consent in my country is 16. If an american 16 year old comes here and have sex and shes from one of your states with 18 as age of consent should the Us be allowed to charge statuatory rape? No, same logic.
Sometimes I lose all hope in you americans and your overreaching policing. Its pure irony that Obama attacks venezuelas level of democracy whilst those two bills are even being considered.
Reply to this
Dear Tsssb-
Go Daddy has withdrawn its support for SOPA, so I will not take time to debate the merits of the bill with you. But, I will point out that your use of statutory rape as a comparison to intellectual property theft is not only inapposite, but offensive. Please use a more appropriate, and relevant, analogy in the future.
Thank you,
AttyJones
Reply to this
To me the overreachin policy of the US is highly more offensive just as most of your judicial system. Id rather 10 guilty people go free than one innocent be imprisoned.
Im glad you found my comparison offensive even though it was spot on. Statuatory rape can be a real crime whilst online piracy is not and has no damages. Albeit there aare many cases of statuatory rape which is nonsensical (15 year old dating and having sex with a 20 year old girlfriend/boyfriend)
Im atleast glad go daddy reversed their stance. I agree that piracy where people make money should be illegal. Private people downloading movies/games is obviously not damaging and is something anyone should be able to understand. The reason its fought so hard now is because fighting it has become a business, its a business built on air.
I still stand by my analogy though as statuatory rape is in many cases a frivolous accusation shocked parents/grown upa with overly connservative views can use to punish healthy relationships.
Oh well, cg on reversal go daddy but im sure more will continue to move domainns.
Reply to this
Dear Tsssb-
Reply to this
Dear Christine,
I'm not sure what your technical background is, but there seems to be a huge misunderstanding over our objections to SOPA.
Firstly, our view is far from 'myopic'. In fact, an argument against SOPA was made by over 80 engineers who created the technologies behind the Internet, and who understand SOPA's potential to undermine the DNS, which is supposed to be a definitive and 100% reliable addressing system.
You're probably also unaware that SOPA will also be detrimental to your business in the long run, which is why you should actually be campaigning against it. The DNS is 'business critical' to many of your customers, and they're boycotting GoDaddy to minimise the risks. It's not a matter of opinion, but a technical decision which happens to be the correct one from an Information Security perspective.
If the integrity of the DNS becomes sufficiently degraded as a result of SOPA, we lose trust in that, and we start using another addressing system. Several alternatives (such as P2P-DNS) are already being developed.
The 'Internet ecosystem' has no duty other than to carry data regardless of content. Any network engineer will tell you that. The responsibility for protecting intellectual property rests on those who created/own it. They either preserve its confidentiality or they make it public - it's a choice between one or the other.
Again, for your own sake and that of your business, please consult those who understand what's happening under the surface of the Internet.
Reply to this
Dear Michael-
When I was an aerospace engineering major, back in the dark ages, we learned to program in COBOL and FORTRAN. So, I'm probably not the best person to construct the DNS of today. Nevertheless, I have been with Go Daddy for ten years, and have at least a working knowledge of the DNS infrastructure we run here.
My technical background is not particularly relevant to this discussion, however, since we have made efforts to improve the language of the bill based on the feedback of the 80 engineers you referenced, as well as our own world-class DNS experts. While the DNS filtering provisions in the bill have been substantially improved, we still feel there is significant improvement to be made to that and other sections of the draft legislation. That is why Go Daddy has withdrawn it's support for SOPA today.
While I disagree with your characterization of the bill, I do appreciate your passion and hope you will participate in suggesting improved language that will make the bill tolerable to the entire Internet community, something it clearly cannot claim today.
Thank you for the thoughtful post,
AttyJones
Reply to this
I don't anticipate you posting this reply, but that's fine.
"In 2010, we voluntarily took action and shut down more than 30,000 illegal online pharmacies." -- And how was that determined? By your own "expert judgment?" Somehow I doubt 30,000 websites were shut down after being granted due process and being declared illegal by a court.
"To do this, everyone in the Internet ecosystem needs to be committed to taking voluntary action." -- Exactly the thinking of China. The government doesn't censor any websites, the service providers are just "voluntarily taking action" to suppress political and religious speech.
"While increasing demands on intermediaries are less than desirable for all of us, we can't just turn a blind eye to illegal conduct online." -- Yes you can. You're a service provider, not a government entity. You're not supposed to declare things "illegal," nor do you have that power. Your job is hosting and domains, not law enforcement.
"And those expectations must respect the predicament that U.S. businesses and American consumers are facing — that they are getting duped, that their intellectual property is being stolen and that the Internet ecosystem has a duty to help" -- By killing off all culture the internet has brought? Youtube is a "rogue site" under SOPA. GoDaddy is a "rogue site" under SOPA. Facebook is a "rogue site" under SOPA. And these could all get shut down for issues the the US government and world governments have admitted aren't very big problems. You support letting your company's site getting shut down on a whim?
Frankly I'm surprised GoDaddy lets you speak for them. Normally anyone that antagonizes their customer base this much would be kept out of the public eye. Plus your arguments seem less based on fact/analysis and more based on "people are doing things I don't like, SHUT DOWN EVERYTHING!"
Reply to this
Dear Kyle-
While I disagree with your characterization that Facebook and YouTube and Go Daddy are sites "dedicated to infringement," and therefore, subject to termination under SOPA, I do appreciate your feedback. If you really believe that Facebook and YouTube and Go Daddy are dedicated to stealing intellectual property, and you're not just saying that to be alarmist, then I would you encourage you to read the language of SOPA more carefully. It is designed to target foreign websites that are devoted to engaging in illegal conduct. Clearly, that is not why the major Internet companies you've identified exist.
Because Go Daddy has withdrawn its support for SOPA, I will not debate the bill with you. But, I will tell you we take due process and censorship seriously and have a set of procedures in place to ensure that no site is ever taken down, and no domain name is ever redirected, on a "whim."
Thank you very much for your post,
AttyJones
Reply to this
Doesn't seem very foreign to me.
Definition- For purposes of this section, a foreign Internet site or portion thereof is a `foreign infringing site' if--
......
(3) the Internet 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 [b]domestic Internet site.[/b]
Reply to this
Dear Frank-
Reply to this
Hi Ms. Jones,
Since when did GoDaddy ever withdraw the support? They only said they would stop supporting it, not withdraw. Meanwhile, how many actions have been taken along with this verbal statement with no backing? Exactly zero.
You are making a fundamentally misleading statement here, and I hope you realize that people are not unaware of the difference.
SOPA may claim to target foreign websites, but had you actually read SOPA AND been honest to the person you replied to you'd acknowledge that it also will affect US law, not simply foreign websites (which we have no legal jurisdiction over anyway).
GoDaddy taking their own due process is exactly the issue - if the request to take down a website has not gone to court first with a court order, then you are skirting court requirements and enabling censorship. In fact, the irony is that this actually creates more work and more legal risk for GoDaddy in doing so.
GoDaddy is losing business because we understand the difference between your written claim as the undersigned, which sums up as "we still support SOPA" and the reality of GoDaddy's actions of the exact same.
Reply to this
Dear Matt-
Reply to this
Christine Jones, it would be excellent to hear your opinion of how frequently you have seen the DMCA process abused (based on your position on goDaddy.)
Also, what safe guards are in the SOPA/PIPA bill's wording that would not only prevent similar abuse by the soon to be created IPEA (or the companies feeding them notices) but could protect US citizens from unmerited censorship via SOPA/PIPA if they become law.
Reply to this
Dear Rawrly-
Reply to this
Those who are concerned abut their intellectual property should not put it in the public domain in the first place. Shame on you if you do.
Reply to this
Well this explains why GoDaddy supports this nonsense. You ask why you think accountability is bad?
Because it's not accountability. It's illegal and unconstitutional. Any random judge can decide to stifle my freedom of speech without any recourse. And don't even try the "but there is recourse" line, one needs to only look at how ICE handles cases to see that's a complete lie.
Reply to this
Dear William-
Reply to this
I just don't see why we need more draconian copyright laws. The DMCA is *already* abused to remove non-infringing content.
Yes, the *intent* of the legislation is supposedly to 'stop' (it will likely fail miserably) piracy. But it will likely end up inconveniencing or hurting innocents (nothing is perfect, and I suspect SOPA is far from it).
It's difficult for me, even as someone who opposes piracy, to believe much of anything that SOPA supporters say. They seem to be greatly exaggerating the problem (that piracy is anything more than an action which may or may not cause a loss of potential profit) and pretending that it's a national security issue. Really, the amount of different draconian copyright laws that I keep hearing people propose is just ridiculous. You'd think people were being murdered by the thousands here.
Until someone can prove that it will not effect innocents at all and won't shift the burden of proof onto the accused, I will, by default, oppose SOPA.
But I do also find it difficult to believe people who claim that SOPA will bring about the apocalypse and take down giants such as Youtube or Google.
Reply to this
Dear wowow-
Reply to this
A bigger problem than the fascist like destructive abilities granted by SOPA is that sick amoral concept of "intellectual property" was made into law last century. Hopefully that will be repealed this century, so these people will stop leaching of others and actually start working for a living instead.
You should NOT paid over and over for a job done once. 99% of humanity doesn't get that luxury.
Reply to this
Dear Peter-
Reply to this
Your views are unwavering just like ours.
Reply to this
GoDaddy has NOT withdrawn its official congressional support for SOPA, see:
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/12/29/0350237/imgurcom-why-we-dumped-godaddy?utm_source=rss1.0mainlinkanon&utm_medium=feed
GoDaddy has lost because it will does not accept that it is "Customers who define value", not the supplier.
Reply to this
Dear James-
Reply to this
Entertaining it may be. However, the most recent company (Sony) to antagonize its "wrong thinking" customers on such an epic scale, has been, in part, also boycotted by them (see: here, here, and here), such that the company is now posting a $2.2 billion loss.
Not quite so entertaining now is it? Not that GoDaddy would ever adopt a similar la-la-la-we-can't-hear-you approach to their customers' concerns...
As someone else posted on the Slashdot thread, "GoDaddy absolutely did not get the message here. The only message they got is that they are losing $$$."
The more GoDaddy fights its own customers, the bigger the Streisand Effect, and the less difficult it becomes for potential customers to realize that they do not want to do business with GoDaddy, if for no other reason than they have no desire to be similarly vilified by their customers, through association with GoDaddy.
Reply to this
Dear James-
Reply to this
"Perhaps it would relieve some of your concern to know that both SOPA and PIPA, as they currently exist, do require a court order"
No, not at all. You did not answer my objection in the slightest.
Perhaps I was unclear in my previous post, or perhaps you carelessly misread what I wrote. A third possibility, which I am reluctant to suggest, is that maybe I was clear and you did understand, and that you're hoping no one will notice that you didn't respond to what I actually said. As a programmer geek I find it hard not to analyze and list every alternative I can think of.
I said "the law operates without any court finding that there actually *is* any infringement at all". You said SOPA requiers a court order against a website. Those statements are both true. SOPA requires court orders against websites in the absense of any court case (and any defence) on whether there is in fact any infringment at all. My objection stands undiminished. As we've seen with the DMCA, an enormous amount of Fair Use or other non-infringing content is taken down. In many cases "good faith" accusations of infringment have taken down PUBLIC DOMAIN content.
SOPA operates in the absence of any court case over infringement itself, in the absence of any defense presented in court against false claims. Any law that operates in that manner will inevitably hit Fair Use or other non-infringing content, and even PUBLIC DOMAIN conent.
I understand copyright holders find it extremely inconvenient to have to take claims of infringement to court, but as you said yourself we cannot disregard the rule of law simply because it is inconvenient. Convenience is not a valid reason to carelessly infringe the rights of innocent people.
"And, there is no provision that makes it more difficult for law abiding people to find non-infringing material. Not sure what made you think that."
What makes me think that is reading the TEXT OF THE BILL currently sitting on the congressional website. Not only does it go after sites containing both infringing and non-infringing content, it will inevitably hit sites with no infringing content at all.
Furthermore the version on the congressional website contains a circumvention clause which means I can be imprisoned for publishing my own non-infringing speech. Note that as a programmer my speech is sometimes written in mathematical language or programming language. When I publish instructions informing people how to access non-infringing content, that speech may be deemed "offering a product" in violation of a circumvention injunction.
"But, to be productive, argument should be about fact, not fiction."
Great! I think it would be productive if you could directly answer "fact" or "fiction" to:
SOPA goes after sites in the absence of any court case (and the absence of any defense being made) to legally resolve whether unlawful infringement actually exists at all.
Reply to this
Dear Alsee-
Reply to this