I'd Be Curious to Know ...
Claire Berlinski, Ed. ·
Jan 18 at 4:52am
... how many of the people on Facebook and Twitter who are really, really indignant about SOPA have actually read the text of the bill? Or even the summary?
I'm amazed at the ease with which the entire world can be made righteously furious. There are 17-year-old Turkish kids on my Facebook feed who are outraged about SOPA. It's simply impossible that they've read it; they just know it's cool to be outraged.
- Comment (46)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
Comments :
Nov '11
Re: I'd Be Curious to Know ...
Do I need to read the bill to know that there's no problem with the Internet that I need the government to solve?
Did I need to read the ObamaCare bill to know that I don't need to be commanded under penalty of law to buy to buy insurance?
Re: I'd Be Curious to Know ...
Fred Cole
Do I need to read the bill to know that there's no problem with the Internet that I need the government to solve?
Do you think copyright and patent protection are important to the functioning of a free-market economy? I'm not defending the legislation, by the way; I think it's deeply flawed, but "protection of property rights" is actually something the government should be in the business of doing.
Oct '10
Re: I'd Be Curious to Know ...
Only a person of truly naive temperament would believe that a problem solved by government edict will be left to the tiny proportions used to justify it's initial introduction.
Copyright law has never been enforced by government censorship of printing houses or newspaper printing plants in America. The shutting down of radio or television stations is a third world POLITICAL practice.
Copyright law, like patent law, is enforced by the offended party through the civil courts. If a music publisher believes he is being pirated, he has the court system to pursue his case against the offenders.
The internet is the latest technology that copyright holders are using as a pretext for legislation because, once again, it is easier to get the government to do the hard work on the taxpayers dime than to hire their own investigators and lawyers, and convince a court that they are being offended against.
And the consequences of power to the government be damned. Our ox is not being gored.
But when Ricochet gets a notice that they are in violation of SOPA-2, who will shut down their site to protest on our behalf?
Aug '10
Re: I'd Be Curious to Know ...
SOPA may be deeply flawed, but the basic idea is akin to anti-money-laundering laws. It is tendentious to refer to such measures as "censorship".
May '10
Re: I'd Be Curious to Know ...
Claire - Have you read it? Do you know that, under SOPA, should you post a YouTube video or a photo that someone claims copyright to, they have the right to demand financial institutions to cutoff subscription purchases to Richochet? And that it also authorizes the Feds to seize the domain should the NY Times complain that you quote their articles way beyond fair use?
When Homeland Security and the Justice Department seizes domain names and servers they do so without due process. It is a shoot now and ask questions later process. At least one site seized over Thanksgiving 2010 was returned to its owner a full year afterwards with no explanation. A FOIA request concerning their seizure of the site Dajaz1.com returned 754 pages - 144 of which was totally redacted. The other pages were so heavily censored that they were useless. The owners, however, were out tens of thousands in legal fees.
Re: I'd Be Curious to Know ...
raycon: Only a person of truly naive temperament would believe that a problem solved by government edict will be left to the tiny proportions used to justify it's initial introduction.
Copyright law has never been enforced by government censorship of printing houses or newspaper printing plants in America. The shutting down of radio or television stations is a third world POLITICAL practice.
Copyright law, like patent law, is enforced by the offended party through the civil courts. If a music publisher believes he is being pirated, he has the court system to pursue his case against the offenders.
And the consequences of power to the government be damned. Our ox is not being gored.
I agree with you. Civil suits, all the way. But you've clearly read the bill.
It's the kids screaming, "They're killing the Internet!"--about a bill in a language they can't read, using a legal concepts so alien to theirs that they couldn't understand them in a million years, that puzzle me. All the more when they're sporting Che Guevara badges.
But steal my intellectual property and I'll sue you from here to Kingdom come.
Oct '11
Re: I'd Be Curious to Know ...
There are information campaigns about SOPA going on around the net, with educational videos explaining the impact of the law and giving example of what could be censored.
Just to name a few websites where I found SOPA related information : thepiratebay.com(filesharing), thatguywiththeglasses.com(cinema critics) and arabist.com(ME blogger). Lets not even include include Wikipedia.
So they aren't exactly getting outraged by ignorance or because it is cool, they did received information about it. We could argue that reading the piece of legislation itself should be advisable, but we all have our trusted source of information to which we outsource this taks. ie people reading newspapers or blogs.
Edited on Jan 18 at 6:21amDec '10
Re: I'd Be Curious to Know ...
Damn you Ricochet. I just spent an hour between 5 and 6 in the AM (on a snow day where I could sleep in!) reading H.R. 3261. Now I really have no idea what this thing is all about.
EJ, got any reference on that claim? I'm really having a hard time finding such ominous powers in the text of the legislation. The closest I can come is §103 of the bill, and even that is stretching it.
Aug '10
Re: I'd Be Curious to Know ...
How many legislators have read it?
May '10
Re: I'd Be Curious to Know ...
Seizure language is in Section 102. While it repeatedly talks of foreign-run sites, the language that states that the sites merely have to be an "Internet site or portion thereof is a U.S.-directed site and is used by users in the United States" is too vague. If you link to something or repost a picture how do you know where the server is? What if the link was a YouTube server in the UK? Does that qualify as a "foreign site?"
These bills are way too sloppy.
Dec '10
Re: I'd Be Curious to Know ...
I think you are underestimating kid's these days. Or at least the internet generation's ability to educate about topics they care about. While I would seriously doubt many have read the actual bill, I am sure most of them have read summaries like this one, this one (which includes a link to the Cato institute), or discussions like this one. Kids are very educated about things they care about (Pokemon, League of Legends, X-men) and they read the web everyday. When the web decides to educated them on something, I don't think it is a stretch to believe they will get the message.
Edited on Jan 18 at 7:35amNov '11
Re: I'd Be Curious to Know ...
The reality is if China steals your property (happened to us), or you don't have the time/money to fight (us) the laws don't matter. I've often thought that the music industry should accept what is (not that it's right- but just reality) and get creative about making money off of their music-quit whining. Also, I imagine it is the same as the LaceyAct/Cites and written so broadly that it can mean anything 'they' want it to. The only people who read it deeply are the ones that actually have to follow it and it's impossible to follow. Then you do the best you can knowing that at anytime YOU may be their example...free indeed.
Dec '10
Re: I'd Be Curious to Know ...
EJHill
Seizure language is in Section 102. While it repeatedly talks of foreign-run sites, the language that states that the sites merely have to be an "Internet site or portion thereof is a U.S.-directed site and is used by users in the United States" is too vague. If you link to something or repost a picture how do you know where the server is? What if the link was a YouTube server in the UK? Does that qualify as a "foreign site?"
These bills are way too sloppy. · Jan 18 at 6:41am
I see. It's the "facilitating" word in §102 (a)(2) that could be construed in any way desirable. We've arrived at the good king argument again.
May '11
Re: I'd Be Curious to Know ...
I don't need to know much about a truck to oppose being run over by it.
If the government wishes to expand its powers to curtail speech, they need to meet rather stiff tests, and they have not made the case. Even if this is taken at face value as a beneficial protection of intellectual property rights, the potential for abuse is overwhelming, and the immediate threat is a "chilling" of free speech, please see stiff test, etc.
Broadly, much of the content business has simply failed to adapt to new realities on the ground, and will continue to face an uphill battle until they stop trying to enforce candle-stick and buggy-whip implementations of valid legal principles.
I agree that IP is worth protecting. Pity then that many purveyors of content see no alternative to rootkits and censorship. Way to become the enemy of the customer.
Read the bill? Perish the thought. That's what I read articles for, and with some exceptions, I think I select my reading material rather well. Oh, and please let my comment here stand as testimony that I actually do pay for value.
May '11
Re: I'd Be Curious to Know ...
I've condensed my opposition to the bills by STEALING SOME INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. Uh, I mean misquoting (in italics) unknown sources more expressive than myself:
"SOPA and PIPA are a power grab by the government. The legislation brings no new legitimate protections, while introducing sweeping powers of seizure and censorship.
I don't get behind many causes supported by Google and Wikipedia, but this cause pays its way in easily understood terms. The good parts of this law are not new, and the new parts are not good."
Nov '11
Re: I'd Be Curious to Know ...
BTW there are definite signs that the music industry is getting more pro-active with locks on YouTube, etc. videos, non-downloadable sites that they showcase their music on now, etc. (it's a pain : ) Many are having to tour more where they sell tickets/CD's and don't most people just use itunes? Artists start out free to get known (a big benefit not often stated in the free controversy) and once they are, quickly institute locks. The same happened with internet TV. For awhile you could get programs for free (pirated) but this industry caught on quickly (next will be commercials- yuck). It just takes awhile and a law will only interfere.
Aug '10
Re: I'd Be Curious to Know ...
EJ is right to point out that the bill is problematic in its particular wording, but I am tired of the "Stop the Corporate Takeover of the Internet" [nonsense].
The film studios are in favor of the bill, yes. But they are chicken scratch compared to Google and Yahoo! and the other corporations who oppose the bill. Google's interests border on the sinister. There is a nice video by an independent film maker that demonstrates Google's financial incentive to maintain a status quo of copytheft.
Edited on Jan 18 at 11:35amMay '10
Re: I'd Be Curious to Know ...
The Heritage Foundation weighs in.
Aug '11
Re: I'd Be Curious to Know ...
What I find deliciously ironic is that the same people crying loudest about SOPA are the ones who want to give the government more and more power to regulate. Do you think this irony will ever occur to them?
Oct '10
Re: I'd Be Curious to Know ...
True... but that does not mitigate the damage it will do.