Hey! That's MY Excuse, RIAA

[AUChizad]

Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia (and Auburn grad)
https://twitter.com/#!/jimmy_wales/status/150287579642740736

I am proud to announce that the Wikipedia domain names will move away from GoDaddy. Their position on #sopa is unacceptable to us.

[AUChizad]

Looks like Wikipedia was the final blow that got GoDaddy to shit their pants.

http://www.godaddy.com/newscenter/release-view.aspx?news_item_id=378&isc=smtwsup

Go Daddy No Longer Supports SOPA
Looks to Internet Community & Fellow Tech Leaders to Develop Legislation We All Support

SCOTTSDALE, Ariz. (Dec. 23, 2011) - Go Daddy is no longer supporting SOPA, the "Stop Online Piracy Act" currently working its way through U.S. Congress.

"Fighting online piracy is of the utmost importance, which is why Go Daddy has been working to help craft revisions to this legislation - but we can clearly do better," Warren Adelman, Go Daddy's newly appointed CEO, said. "It's very important that all Internet stakeholders work together on this. Getting it right is worth the wait. Go Daddy will support it when and if the Internet community supports it."

Go Daddy and its General Counsel, Christine Jones, have worked with federal lawmakers for months to help craft revisions to legislation first introduced some three years ago. Jones has fought to express the concerns of the entire Internet community and to improve the bill by proposing changes to key defined terms, limitations on DNS filtering to ensure the integrity of the Internet, more significant consequences for frivolous claims, and specific provisions to protect free speech.

"As a company that is all about innovation, with our own technology and in support of our customers, Go Daddy is rooted in the idea of First Amendment Rights and believes 100 percent that the Internet is a key engine for our new economy," said Adelman.

In changing its position, Go Daddy remains steadfast in its promise to support security and stability of the Internet. In an effort to eliminate any confusion about its reversal on SOPA though, Jones has removed blog postings that had outlined areas of the bill Go Daddy did support.

"Go Daddy has always fought to preserve the intellectual property rights of third parties, and will continue to do so in the future," Jones said.

[AUChizad]

List of Senators that consponsored PIPA (the Senate version of SOPA).
http://1.usa.gov/nUvM0q

Doesn't look like there are any from Alabama. There are, however, two from Louisiana.

I sent them this:
http://www.masspirates.org/blog/dontcensorthenet/information-packet-for-senators-regarding-pipa-and-cfsa/

Introduction

Two bills are nearing a vote in the Senate: the Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA or “Protect IP,” S.968) and its companion bill, the Commercial Felony Streaming Act (CFSA, S.978). A similar bill in the House, called the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA, H.R.3261), combines PIPA and CFSA and is even more extreme. This packet focuses on the Senate bills.

The proponents of these bills claim that they are narrowly tailored to target “rogue” websites. Nothing could be further from the truth. This legislation threatens every website that allows users to upload content, and every user who wishes to engage creatively with preexisting media. Further, the legislation provides for unprecedented censorship of the Internet and makes users more vulnerable to malicious hackers.

Packet Contents
1.  ISSUE: Censorship
2.  ISSUE: Criminalizing Infringers
3.  ISSUE: Third-Party Liability
4.  ISSUE: Undermining Internet Security and Privacy
5.  Policy Statement

ISSUE: Censorship

PIPA would permit the government to block a website based on an accusation that part of the website infringes someone’s intellectual property rights. This is accomplished by cutting off funding to the site, requiring search engines to de-list the site, and requiring advertisers to withdraw their ads from the site and block that site’s ads. In addition, PIPA requires Domain Name System (DNS) operators to stop directing Internet users to the accused website. The effect is that a user typing in the web address would not be able to reach the website.

A website operator enjoys the right of free speech, a right that does not vanish simply due to hosting some infringing content. Even infringing speech enjoys a degree of First Amendment protection. The doctrine of fair use, for example, protects a wide range of speech. The proposed censorship regime is particularly reckless and disrespectful of the right to free speech because it permits websites to be censored without an opportunity for their opposition to be heard.

Imagine if all of YouTube or Facebook were shut down because some users employed the platform in infringing ways. Or if a political candidate’s website were censored because he used quotations or video clips from his opponent’s campaign, or even popular music or unlicensed photographs, without permission. Now imagine that an unproven accusation of such infringement were sufficient for censorship to take place.

In recent years, the Department of Justice has seized hundreds of domain names and redirected them so as to display NBC propaganda about the perceived need for ever more extreme anti-copying measures. A Nevada judge recently ordered that 600 accused domain names be transferred to Chanel, the luxury goods company. If PIPA were to become law and ratify these actions, the government would regularly be asked to transfer hundreds of website domain names to rightsholders, likely for use as further propaganda platforms. Judges have shown a willingness to permit these mass seizures without an opportunity for defendants to be heard, at a very early stage of litigation, an approach sanctioned by PIPA.

ISSUE: Criminalizing Infringers

CFSA provides that infringement of the performance right would become a criminal offense. Ten ‘performances’ within 180 days, and you can be imprisoned for up to five years unless the original work could have been cheaply licensed.

Practically everyone under the age of thirty will be a criminal under CFSA. Clicking a ‘share’ button on a website will carry a sentence comparable with armed robbery, involuntary manslaughter, or assault and battery with a deadly weapon.

An example: a student films herself and her friends singing a pop song (without a license) and uploads the video. Ten of her friends watch it. She may be guilty of a crime that could send her to jail for five years, as are any of her friends who re-share her video.

Criminal penalties will also cause people to pull even further back from the theoretical bounds of fair use, out of fear that their conduct will be found not to qualify. This will reduce creative output, not stimulate it. Statutory damages are already draconian and, in typical cases, disproportionate to any harm suffered by the rightsholder. Adding jail time is an extreme measure, and a step in the wrong direction.

ISSUE: Third-Party Liability

PIPA would impose liability on intermediaries and those who provide tools and platforms that support websites that involve infringement, such as advertising companies, payment processors, and search engines. PIPA also provides for penalties against an entire website based on infringing use of the website (e.g. infringing videos on YouTube).

The collateral burden to search engines, payment processors, and advertisers is why some have likened the bill to replacing the scalpel of a copyright infringement action with a chainsaw. Not only is an entire website put at risk for containing infringing content, but new burdens and liabilities are imposed on entities that have nothing to do with the infringement, and may not even have a business relationship with the website.

Further, the most popular and successful websites are those that permit people to speak and share with one another, and every website that permits users to upload content enables infringement.  The bill would attempt to force innovative websites to police their users. This is a task that would simply be impossible for small innovators, and the high risk of liability would strongly deter investment in such businesses and curtail the strong job growth enjoyed in this industry.

ISSUE: Undermining Internet Security and Privacy

PIPA would require Domain Name System (DNS) operators to divert users from accused websites, resulting in US DNS operators becoming out of synch with those in the rest of the world. Internet security and privacy measures rely on an uncompromised DNS system. When this system is broken, users are more vulnerable to malicious hackers.

POLICY STATEMENT

The ostensible purpose of intellectual monopolies such as copyright was to promote the creation of eligible works, by granting creators the exclusive right to duplicate their creations for a limited time.

We live in an era where nearly every American has access to a system designed to instantly duplicate information, a system that has done wonders for our economy and empowered citizens to speak and create to an unprecedented degree. We also have tools to modify the cultural works we engage with and re-share them as part of a vast “remix” culture that is incredibly prolific.

These advances have come in spite of intellectual monopolies, not because of them, and have been threatened at every step by the handful of organizations that hold huge libraries of copyrighted works. Strengthening intellectual monopolies is a step in the wrong direction. Crippling our information infrastructure and criminalizing harmless citizens to strengthen intellectual monopolies is simply madness and an embarrassment to the ideal of a free society.

[Vandy Vol]

A website operator enjoys the right of free speech, a right that does not vanish simply due to hosting some infringing content. Even infringing speech enjoys a degree of First Amendment protection. The doctrine of fair use, for example, protects a wide range of speech.

This is yet again where protesters go shooting off at the mouth without knowing anything about the law.

No judicial opinion on fair use has ever indicated that a public performance (streaming) or public sharing (hosting) of the original copyrighted work (not covered or otherwise "artistically borrowed" with a new spin) is fair use.  Use of the work for your own enjoyment after you've legitimately obtained the work?  Yes, fair use.  Handing it out to hundreds of people in the street for free?  No, not fair use.  Putting it on the web for millions of people to download for free?  No, not fair use.

Now imagine that an unproven accusation of such infringement were sufficient for censorship to take place.

Again, I don't understand what these people are reading; my guess is that they're not reading anything at all from the bill itself, but are just jumping to conclusions based upon hyperbolic, fear-mongering propaganda.   A mere accusation can not take down your website, unless you refuse to respond, or unless you are taken to court and the judge determines that your website should be taken down.  There is no violation of due process; you have every chance to show that your website is not an infringement on someone else's copyright.


Are there legitimate problems with the bill?  Sure.  Are the majority of these people who you're citing focusing on these legitimate problems?  Not at all.  They're conjuring up straw men in an attempt to show that the mean ole Big Brother government is attempting to take your freedom of speech and fair use rights away, and that all of your sacred interwebz sites will disappear into a big black hole of unfounded accusations.

[AUChizad]

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111223/03354017177/more-more-internet-infrastructure-players-coming-out-to-say-how-bad-sopapipa-are.shtml

More And More Internet Infrastructure Players Coming Out To Say How Bad SOPA/PIPA Are
from the anyone-support-it? dept

We've noted in the past that most of the people who actually understand the basic internet infrastructure have come out against SOPA and PIPA. That includes both individuals and companies (such as OpenDNS and Dyn), but it appears that we may be reaching a tipping point with tons and tons of internet infrastructure companies speaking out against these bills. We've already talked about the massive GoDaddy backlash... but it's interesting to note that many registrars and hosting companies are using this as an opportunity to speak out against SOPA and PIPA. Hover, Dreamhost, NameCheap and Name.com have all made explicit statements on their blogs. Back in the DNS space, EasyDNS has written a blistering anti-SOPA post on its blog:

    If this becomes law, it's a short stretch from SOPA to NODA (No Online Dissent Anywhere) and if you think I'm a nutcase for saying so, I'd like to remind everybody what happened just over a year ago, when US politicians were tripping over themselves to shut down wikileaks (a royal fiasco in which this company was embroiled) and to this day, they have not been charged with a crime anywhere.

    Many of the "dirty tricks" employed against Wikileaks would be enshrined in law under SOPA (and someday, NODA):

        A requirement that service providers block access to offending domains, including that they stop resolving their DNS
        Search engines to purge search results for offending domains
        Payment processors to sever ties to offending domains

    And they added an extra provision that it will be an offense to knowingly create a service or system to provide a workaround to a banned domain or host. So for example, they would no longer have to hassle Mozilla to remove that firefox plugin that lets you reach ICE blocked websites, it would be illegal to make it or distribute it.

And that's not all. As if to drive home the point, a relatively new group called the SaveHosting Coalition just came out with a letter signed by over 300 execs involved in internet infrastructure companies, saying they're against SOPA. The full letter, embedded below (Link), is well worth a read. It's quite comprehensive, and basically makes it quite clear that SOPA isn't just bad for internet infrastructure, but it's bad for jobs and the economy, as well as pretty much anyone who does anything online. Here's just a snippet:

    We write to express that, after careful review of H.R.3261 - the Stop Online Piracy Act of 2011 (SOPA), we believe that this legislation will lead to significant loss of high-wage, high-tech jobs in our industry and other industries that are directly or indirectly supported by our industry. This impact will diminish the attractiveness of U.S. companies to foreign customers, while also reducing the U.S. hosting industry’s ability to compete with foreign competition within our own borders. Further, and of equal importance, weaknesses in SOPA may actually lead to less protection for intellectual property owners by undermining the stability of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Finally, SOPA undermines the U.S. judicial system’s reputation as a fair and transparent method of resolving business disputes.

It's getting more and more ridiculous for anyone to suggest that SOPA isn't harmful to the wider internet infrastructure, when pretty much anyone who knows anything about that infrastructure has come out against the bill.

[AUChizad]

This is yet again where protesters go shooting off at the mouth without knowing anything about the law.

No judicial opinion on fair use has ever indicated that a public performance (streaming) or public sharing (hosting) of the original copyrighted work (not covered or otherwise "artistically borrowed" with a new spin) is fair use.  Use of the work for your own enjoyment after you've legitimately obtained the work?  Yes, fair use.  Handing it out to hundreds of people in the street for free?  No, not fair use.  Putting it on the web for millions of people to download for free?  No, not fair use.

Again, I don't understand what these people are reading; my guess is that they're not reading anything at all from the bill itself, but are just jumping to conclusions based upon hyperbolic, fear-mongering propaganda.   A mere accusation can not take down your website, unless you refuse to respond, or unless you are taken to court and the judge determines that your website should be taken down.  There is no violation of due process; you have every chance to show that your website is not an infringement on someone else's copyright.


Are there legitimate problems with the bill?  Sure.  Are the majority of these people who you're citing focusing on these legitimate problems?  Not at all.  They're conjuring up straw men in an attempt to show that the mean ole Big Brother government is attempting to take your freedom of speech and fair use rights away, and that all of your sacred interwebz sites will disappear into a big black hole of unfounded accusations.

What are you reading? Have you read the actual bill itself? It is incredibly and intentionally vague for the very purpose of broadening the legal definition of copyright infringement.

[Saniflush]

I really only have one question after reading all of this....




How does this affect led technology?

[Vandy Vol]

What are you reading? Have you read the actual bill itself? It is incredibly and intentionally vague for the very purpose of broadening the legal definition of copyright infringement.

They say its "fair use."  Sorry; streaming and/or hosting copyrighted materials on the internet without permission is not a fair use.  Distribution of a copyrighted work is not personal use.  Thus, when this is their stated opposition to the bill:

A website operator enjoys the right of free speech, a right that does not vanish simply due to hosting some infringing content. Even infringing speech enjoys a degree of First Amendment protection. The doctrine of fair use, for example, protects a wide range of speech.

They are showing their ignorance of current copyright laws.  A website operator whose site is shut down according to the terms of this bill was not exercising any fair use, and/or was a dumb ass for not responding to the infringement notice.

Similarly, when some whiny, moronic protester states the following:

Now imagine that an unproven accusation of such infringement were sufficient for censorship to take place.

They are yet again showing me that they either haven't read the bill or are mentally retarded.  Under the terms of the bill, an "unproven accusation" does not result in the censorship of your website.  The hyperbolic claim of many of these protesters is that all it takes is for someone to complain that your website is infringing on a copyright, and then your site is automatically shut down.

False.

You are given notice.  Respond and your site isn't touched.  The alleged victim who made the complaint then has to take you to court and obtain a court order requesting that your site be taken down.  Website owners are being afforded due process; they are getting notified every step of the way, and have every chance to defend themselves.

It is in this regard that most of these idiots don't know what they're talking about.

Yes, the bill is vague in many other areas, but if you had taken the time to read my post and the portions I quoted, you'll note that I'm pointing out these specific idiotic statements regarding how sites are taken down and why under this bill.  I'm pointing out the misleading statements about "fair use."

Most of these people aren't even talking about the vagueness of the law; they're whining about aspects of the law that simply don't exist, or at least don't operate in the way that they think they do.

[RWS]

I'm pretty sure that as long as you're not doing some stupid shit like distributing movies, music, and other copyrighted content without the proper licenses, you don't have anything to worry about. I'm just not seeing what the problem is if you are using some company's intellectual property and they want to stop it. You're using their property, that they haven't otherwise given consent to be used. Thinking that linking to a news article would land you in trouble is ridiculous. You're linking to the source of the story who is obviously offering it for free. I understand that parts of the bill are a little murky, but I think there is alot of hyperbole involved here as well.

[AUChizad]

I'm pretty sure that as long as you're not doing some stupid shit like distributing movies, music, and other copyrighted content without the proper licenses, you don't have anything to worry about. I'm just not seeing what the problem is if you are using some company's intellectual property and they want to stop it. You're using their property, that they haven't otherwise given consent to be used. Thinking that linking to a news article would land you in trouble is ridiculous. You're linking to the source of the story who is obviously offering it for free. I understand that parts of the bill are a little murky, but I think there is alot of hyperbole involved here as well.

And that's where you're wrong.

Not saying linked articles is the goal of this bill, but the legislation is intentionally vague enough, that this could be considered an infringement. And absolutely linking to YouTube videos, that copyright holders later deem in copyright violation because someone was humming a pop song in the background, or because someone's Polo horse on their shirt was visible, would not only hold the user that uploaded the video to YouTube viable, but also YouTube itself, and any website that linked to it. It's ridiculous and extreme, I know, but that's within the vague language of this bill.

Want to post a funny little meme of Stan Marsh blowing his load all over the place to express you thoroughly enjoyed someone's post?

1) Viacom can sue you and Godfather for use of the picture
2) You wouldn't be able to find it because Google could be sued for linking to the picture
3) The person that posted it in the first place could be sued for posting it on their blog or whatever to begin with.

[GH2001]

And that's where you're wrong.

Not saying linked articles is the goal of this bill, but the legislation is intentionally vague enough, that this could be considered an infringement. And absolutely linking to YouTube videos, that copyright holders later deem in copyright violation because someone was humming a pop song in the background, or because someone's Polo horse on their shirt was visible, would not only hold the user that uploaded the video to YouTube viable, but also YouTube itself, and any website that linked to it. It's ridiculous and extreme, I know, but that's within the vague language of this bill.

Want to post a funny little meme of Stan Marsh blowing his load all over the place to express you thoroughly enjoyed someone's post?

1) Viacom can sue you and Godfather for use of the picture
2) You wouldn't be able to find it because Google could be sued for linking to the picture
3) The person that posted it in the first place could be sued for posting it on their blog or whatever to begin with.

I see high blood pressure meds in your future at a young age.

[Saniflush]

I see high blood pressure meds in your future at a young age.

One would think that at his age he could fuck his high blood pressure down.

[AUChizad]

I see high blood pressure meds in your future at a young age.

I take Lisinopril. Seriously.

[GH2001]

I take Lisinopril. Seriously.

I was somewhat kidding. I knew you were wound tight at times and probably bound for those meds, but didn't imagine you were already on them. You're like 27 right? Holy shit man - this may be nature's way of telling you to calm down. Just look at it this way - that bill is either going to pass or fail regardless of how much you stress your heart out. Why worry to that extent? Just a thought.

[djsimp]

Chizad?

[AUChizad]

I was somewhat kidding. I knew you were wound tight at times and probably bound for those meds, but didn't imagine you were already on them. You're like 27 right? Holy shit man - this may be nature's way of telling you to calm down. Just look at it this way - that bill is either going to pass or fail regardless of how much you stress your heart out. Why worry to that extent? Just a thought.

I'm 29, but I've been on them for at least 2 years. Also omeprazole, gemfibrozil, and simvastatin. Been on omperazole for like 10 years.

[Vandy Vol]

I'm 29, but I've been on them for at least 2 years. Also omeprazole, gemfibrozil, and simvastatin. Been on omperazole Viagra for like 10 years.

Fixt.

[AUChizad]

Chizad?

That clip from Scanners is the intellectual property of the Embassy Pictures Corporation. You're going to pound-me-in-the-ass prison.

[djsimp]

That clip from Scanners is the intellectual property of the Embassy Pictures Corporation. You're going to pound-me-in-the-ass prison.

I thought you would like that.

[GH2001]

I'm 29, but I've been on them for at least 2 years. Also omeprazole, gemfibrozil, and simvastatin. Been on omperazole for like 10 years.

Say it with me Chizad.....

GOOS-fraba