Censoring the Internet

  • Evil Kraig F

    SSC Guru

    Points: 100851

    There are a few sections in this bill that concern me, but I am not a lawyer, so I may not be seeing the whole picture that one of them would. In particular this bill references other existing laws that I didn't do the research on.

    In essence, though, from what I gather from the Senate's version (PIPA), all work and disclaimers would need to go either through the Attourney General's office for a temporary injuction (with no specific requirement for due processing timelines) or via a court order. It does not specify WHAT court, though I'm not sure if that's necessary. At no time, at least without having the Attorney General's office under their wing, can a private company's claim force an immediate injunction.

    I haven't read through the House's version though.


    - Craig Farrell

    Never stop learning, even if it hurts. Ego bruises are practically mandatory as you learn unless you've never risked enough to make a mistake.

    For better assistance in answering your questions[/url] | Forum Netiquette
    For index/tuning help, follow these directions.[/url] |Tally Tables[/url]

    Twitter: @AnyWayDBA

  • Revenant

    SSC-Forever

    Points: 42467

    Evil Kraig F (1/10/2012)


    There are a few sections in this bill that concern me, but I am not a lawyer, so I may not be seeing the whole picture that one of them would. In particular this bill references other existing laws that I didn't do the research on.

    In essence, though, from what I gather from the Senate's version (PIPA), all work and disclaimers would need to go either through the Attourney General's office for a temporary injuction (with no specific requirement for due processing timelines) or via a court order. It does not specify WHAT court, though I'm not sure if that's necessary. At no time, at least without having the Attorney General's office under their wing, can a private company's claim force an immediate injunction.

    I haven't read through the House's version though.

    "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session."[

    -- Mark Twain

  • Steve Jones - SSC Editor

    SSC Guru

    Points: 717939

    Revenant (1/10/2012)


    "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session."[

    -- Mark Twain

    True dat. It's one reason I think we ought to change the people in the legislature often.

  • Steve Jones - SSC Editor

    SSC Guru

    Points: 717939

    Evil Kraig F (1/10/2012)


    There are a few sections in this bill that concern me, but I am not a lawyer, so I may not be seeing the whole picture that one of them would. In particular this bill references other existing laws that I didn't do the research on.

    In essence, though, from what I gather from the Senate's version (PIPA), all work and disclaimers would need to go either through the Attorney General's office for a temporary injunction (with no specific requirement for due processing timelines) or via a court order. It does not specify WHAT court, though I'm not sure if that's necessary. At no time, at least without having the Attorney General's office under their wing, can a private company's claim force an immediate injunction.

    I haven't read through the House's version though.

    Ditto for me. I didn't research the other laws in there. However I assume the AG will seek a "friendly" court (dem = liberal judge, gop = conservative judge). I do think that overall the courts tend to rule fairly, although their interpretations vary, at least they tend to think about the issues a bit. I don't always agree, and there are exceptions, but having some review is good.

    The main problems I have are that this is a gross block. Someone uploads a bad video to YouTube.UK, they don't agree it's infringing, the whole domain is whacked because of one content item.

    There are provisions to work with the "portion thereof" the site, but the DNS blocks are an issue to me. I think the proposed alternative I saw which limited the penalties to financial institutions is better. I can also see a bill which requires search engines to block the particular page as being better, rather than the site.

    Ultimately it sucks if someone overseas rips you off, but either we have agreements with their government to handle things or we don't. We can't have perfect enforcement and we shouldn't. That's a police state where justice is too swift, hard, and corrupt (absolute power and all that).

  • Revenant

    SSC-Forever

    Points: 42467

    Steve Jones - SSC Editor (1/11/2012)


    . . . Someone uploads a bad video to YouTube.UK, they don't agree it's infringing, the whole domain is whacked because of one content item. . . .

    Even worrse, someone uploads a video which includes a clip whose author (or copyright holder or distribution rights holder) disagrees whether it is or is not fair use, and those laws vary from country to country as well.

    Note interesting thing: SOPA talks about copyright, but if you post say a video with proper attribution, it is not violation of copyright but of distribution rights.

    This will be much deeper mess than it seems now. If history gives any guidance, it will be like with DMCA which was also meant to protect online contents. The first case filed under DMCA dealt with violation of proprietary interfaces of the Tiptronic transmission.

    I wonder what will be SOPA used for.

  • Steve Jones - SSC Editor

    SSC Guru

    Points: 717939

    I think reposting a copyrighted work without permission is still copyright. The copyright laws control distribution as a protected right.

    The bigger problem is fair use. There's no provision in there for fair use. If someone uses a copyrighted work and it's a limited use for the purposes of criticism/comment/etc, we don't have a good way to allow those.

    We also don't seem to be good at inadvertent allowances. I shoot a podcast in from of some work of copyrighted art, even though the art isn't necessarily a part of what I do, I can't distribute the podcast because I'm "infringing", which seems silly. Same if I shot and there's a TV visible (no audio) of some program that's copyrighted.

    The DCMA has worked OK for removing copyrighted stuff for me, as long as a large hosting company controls the domain. When it's joe's garage server, there's no recourse. Whether there should be is a debate to have, but I think in a limited time, I ought to have some ability to remove stuff, but not whack the domain.

  • Revenant

    SSC-Forever

    Points: 42467

    Steve Jones - SSC Editor (1/11/2012)


    I think reposting a copyrighted work without permission is still copyright. The copyright laws control distribution as a protected right. . . .

    As a general principle, yes. However, SOPA is supposed to protect music by the big four and Hollywood movies, and those, except for indies, separate distribution rights from copyright by design. I may be wrong but I believe there has not been a Hollywood movie distributed by its studio since 1954. Music industry followed in the 90s.

  • Revenant

    SSC-Forever

    Points: 42467

    On a second thought, distribution separated frrom copyright is bnecoming common in software, too. I believe BillG pioneered that approach when he got distribution rights to Flight Simulator, which was developed by and copyrighted to subLOGIC. Now it is more rule than exception for Xbox games.

  • Steve Jones - SSC Editor

    SSC Guru

    Points: 717939

    Ah, so you can assign our a portion of your copyright. The authors retain copyright for their work published here, but they grant us perpetual publication (distribution) rights on this site. They can republish elsewhere after a short time (90 days) if they like and they own the work.

    Some companies will do exclusive distribution rights for content, but they don't own the copyright and after some time, the distribution reverts to the owner. But I believe that's a contract that is a sub-assignment of the copyright.

    Talking about this stuff shouldn't be that confusing.

  • Revenant

    SSC-Forever

    Points: 42467

    Steve Jones - SSC Editor (1/11/2012)


    Ah, so you can assign our a portion of your copyright. The authors retain copyright for their work published here, but they grant us perpetual publication (distribution) rights on this site. They can republish elsewhere after a short time (90 days) if they like and they own the work.

    Some companies will do exclusive distribution rights for content, but they don't own the copyright and after some time, the distribution reverts to the owner. But I believe that's a contract that is a sub-assignment of the copyright.

    Talking about this stuff shouldn't be that confusing.

    There are lots of lawayers who has a vested interest in keeping it that way - unfortunately.

  • Evil Kraig F

    SSC Guru

    Points: 100851

    Revenant (1/11/2012)


    Steve Jones - SSC Editor (1/11/2012)


    Ah, so you can assign our a portion of your copyright. The authors retain copyright for their work published here, but they grant us perpetual publication (distribution) rights on this site. They can republish elsewhere after a short time (90 days) if they like and they own the work.

    Some companies will do exclusive distribution rights for content, but they don't own the copyright and after some time, the distribution reverts to the owner. But I believe that's a contract that is a sub-assignment of the copyright.

    Talking about this stuff shouldn't be that confusing.

    There are lots of lawayers who has a vested interest in keeping it that way - unfortunately.

    That in itself is one of the biggest problems I think we face in the U.S. right now. This bill, if it could be taken at face value, might have been a viable law. It's the intertwinement with all the other laws, and untrackable results, that make it too confusing to actually learn how to do things properly.

    I'll stop there before I start up a rant. The House's version of the Bill (SOPA) is much more open to interpretation. I understand the intent of the PIPA (the senate version) and I personally believe that the usual government morass will stop trivial and silly things from wandering through and only having important components get involved. Will there be occassional outliers? Yeah, of course, but we don't have perfect, we just have humans.


    - Craig Farrell

    Never stop learning, even if it hurts. Ego bruises are practically mandatory as you learn unless you've never risked enough to make a mistake.

    For better assistance in answering your questions[/url] | Forum Netiquette
    For index/tuning help, follow these directions.[/url] |Tally Tables[/url]

    Twitter: @AnyWayDBA

Viewing 11 posts - 46 through 56 (of 56 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply