SOPA - Is it right?

Current Events Domestic United States Politics
1

Currently there is a bill in the works, which the department of justice is attempting to pass. The official purpose of the bill is to “expand the ability of U.S. law enforcement and copyright holders to fight online trafficking in copyrighted intellectual property and counterfeit goods.” Which sounds like a good idea.

The controversy with this bill is that while it would stop things like people uploading other’s copyrighted material to YouTube and other sources, it would also put a halt to the already large and growing video game culture on the internet.

Here is a brief summary of what happens in the gaming community: There are currently many internet personalities who make all of their content (Such as video game reviews, previews, and partial play throughs) using recordings of whatever video game they are reviewing or playing.

Other personalities such as Sean “Day9” Plott, hosts a daily internet show where he analyzes and gives advice on how to play the popular strategy game “StarCraft 2”. Other professional Starcraft players (Yes, professional, they have full professional tournaments with teams, casters, the whole deal) make a significant part of their income live sreaming themselves play the game competitively.

So most people in the gaming community are vehemently against SOPA, since apparently it would mean all of these internet personalities would essentially lose their job, and the viewers would no longer have anything to watch. Granted, the bill states that if someone can get permission of the company which made the game, they can post online content including footage of the game, but many say this will over complicate what is currently a working situation.

Oh and a final argument of the gaming community is that while casters, reviewers, and players are in fact using footage from a copyrighted game, their videos (which garner thousands of views) are essentially free advertising for the game company.

So what is the proper view of SOPA? Should it be fought?

Edit: wikipedia article on SOPA http://en.wikipedia…line_Piracy_Act

2

Day[9] isn’t going to have his videos taken down. Nor is any competitive player. Blizzard made the replay function so people could post them on the internet, so I don’t think they are violating any laws by doing this. To put it this way, the EULA people sign when they install the game, or install a patch probably states this very thing. So unless this SOPA bill is creating some new laws concerning the matter I do not see anything happening to the gaming community.

3

SOPA should be opposed because its mandated takedown of websites based on accusation is a denial of due process, because its interference with the internet’s Domain Name System is damaging to the operation and security of the entire internet, and because it is a corrupt neo-fascist subsidy of a declining business sector whose most persuasive “argument” is the bribes it gives to congressmen’s reelection committees.

3 Likes
4

@grames Very cool precise response.

5

SOPA should be opposed because its mandated takedown of websites based on accusation is a denial of due process…

How so? What is the procedure mandated by SOPA? Wikipedia says:

The bill provides for “enhancing enforcement against rogue websites operated and registered overseas”’ date=’ and authorizes the United States Department of Justice to seek a court order in rem against …

..because its interference with the internet’s Domain Name System is damaging to the operation and security of the entire internet

Please elaborate (technical details are OK with me).

…and because it is a corrupt neo-fascist subsidy of a declining business …

Are we throwing the intellectual property rights to the dogs?

Sasha

6

SOPA itself is a violation of property rights. It allows the government to shutdown websites, without warning or due process, for having user posted, copyrighted material. Which means: a website that allows user content and actively attempts to stop copyrighted material would be shutdown for the actions of a user on its services.

7

Tomorrow (Wednesday) Wikipedia will be blacked out to oppose the SOPA bill.

8

Google is planning to do something as well. I don’t know what but if I had to guess: Perhaps putting a banner on their home page or something like that.

9

Are you sure SOPA violates due process? I do understand that it’s a 71 page bill, but on the very first page it says that no action by the state can be found to violate the first amendment. It also says that sufficient evidence must be provided that the website owner’s primary purpose is to distribute copyright material. Also, it says that criminal action can be taken against anyone who files false SOPA claims. Is there something in the 71 page thing that contradicts this?

10

Google is planning to do something as well. I don’t know what but if I had to guess: Perhaps putting a banner on their home page or something like that.

Looks like they blacked out the Google label; clicking on it brings one to information on SOPA/PIPA.

11

Looks like they blacked out the Google label; clicking on it brings one to information on SOPA/PIPA.

In support, David changed the OO.com banner to include a protest too.

12

Are you sure SOPA violates due process? I do understand that it’s a 71 page bill, but on the very first page it says that no action by the state can be found to violate the first amendment. It also says that sufficient evidence must be provided that the website owner’s primary purpose is to distribute copyright material. Also, it says that criminal action can be taken against anyone who files false SOPA claims. Is there something in the 71 page thing that contradicts this?

I’d be interested in specifics on this too. Is there anywhere with some kind of digest of this thing with quotes and page numbers that are relevant?

13

In support, David changed the OO.com banner to include a protest too.

That little teeny “CENSORED” all the way over to the right, nowhere near the name? Kind of inconspicuous.

14

Being able to effectively shut down a website on the mere accusation of piracy is inflicting punishment before judgement - a most basic violation of due process.

The bill doesn’t add any more real protections to IP (which SHOULD be protected, of course), it only adds measures to punish the innocent and ignorant.

1 Like
15

A - Does the proposed law specifically protect an individual’s rights?

B -Does the proposed law specifically violate any individual’s rights?

If the answers are not *clearly* a:Yes / b:No then the law should not be supported and the politicians should go back and try again (and probably in less than 71 pages).

(null)

16

Some specific citations listed here:

http://baselinescenario.com/2012/01/18/the-end-of-the-blog/

To answer freestyle:

A - Not in any way not already protected

B - Yes, in that due process can be bypassed and punishment applied simply by sending a letter

17

Tomorrow (Wednesday) Wikipedia will be blacked out to oppose the SOPA bill.

That’s nice. I’m sure in future appeals to donors, they will add “denying service to customers, in an attempt to make a political statement” to the list of reasons why I should give them money.

18

Being able to effectively shut down a website on the mere accusation of piracy is inflicting punishment before judgement - a most basic violation of due process.

What do you mean “mere accusation”? Are you saying I could shut down any website on the Internet, merely by accusing them of piracy? Because that sounds like something out of a superhero movie.

I don’t think it would work though. Pretty sure I couldn’t just e-mail an accusation to the DHS, and have CNN.com shut down. I’m pretty sure they would first check if my accusation is valid or not.

19

Pretty sure I couldn’t just e-mail an accusation to the DHS, and have CNN.com shut down. I’m pretty sure they would first check if my accusation is valid or not.

The question is not whether the government would follow some type of process, but whether they must by law. And, more importantly, whether that process itself is just and is designed with individual rights as its guiding principle.

It the government’s power is arbitrary and anti-individual right – as SOPA opponents claim – then the CNN example does not help. The answer is that the government may not shut down CNN because too many voters will be upset, but they may shut down something that a large number of voters would like to see shut down.

20

The question is not whether the government would follow some type of process, but whether they must by law.

The claim I was answering in this case was that they would have the power to shut a website down based on mere accusation. Not suspicion, not preliminary evidence, not probable cause, but mere accusation.

As for the process, it involves a court order authorizing any kind of action. Last time I checked, US judges don’t even get out of bed based merely on accusations, let alone issue court orders.

So far, out of the arguments made against this bill, the only one I failed to dismiss as either based on false claims or fallacious is that it is ambiguous on what kind of liability companies would be exposed to. If that is true, that’s a problem that should be fixed as soon as possible. But it doesn’t warrant throwing it all out, or labeling it censorship.