fantastic_jackie (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
fantastic_jackie) wrote2011-11-28 12:45 pm
fantastic_jackie) wrote2011-11-28 12:45 pm
Entry tags:
Protect IP Act/SOPA/E-PARASITE Bill: Rumors vs Fact
After all the LJ entries, Facebook links, forum posts and articles, and Youtube videos that explain dire consequences of what would and could happen to you and I should this bill pass, (actually, these bills), I decided that I needed to know more. They're pretty scary claims, ranging from Uncle Sam and Big Hollywood/Record Labels unilaterally blasting sites off the internet for tiny infractions to individual users facing felony charges and being fined and jailed for Youtube fanvideos and violating a site's TOS.
The question is, are they actually true? Should we really be panicking?
As a conservative, my knee-jerk reaction is to believe whatever the government is doing is bad, so I have to work against that bias. After researching the bill further, I don't think that's quite the case, but I have to admit that I do still have reservations about it. After all, good intentions often pave the road to destruction.
If this is a bill you're concerned about, I'd suggest reading at least the links provided below, if not my commentary that accompanies them. I am just some chick on the internet, after all.
For me, this is a topic of legislation I've followed off and on, pretty much just whenever it gets into the news. I have read the bills in addition to articles, both for and against the legislation. My intention with this post is not to sway you one way or another: just to help those of you concerned find out the facts of the bills.
You keep saying bills. How many are there?
There are two. The one in the Senate is called the Protect IP Act and the one in the House is called the Stop Online Piracy Act, SOPA, or the Enforcing and Protecting American Rights Against Sites Intent on Theft and Exploitation Act, E-PARASITE Act. The Senate bill was introduced earlier this year and tabled by a Dem Senator. SOPA is that bill's sibling in the other house of Congress.
Are there any differences between them?
Maybe. I'm not really sure, and the reason is because I'm not a lawyer.
When I initially read the Protect IP Act - the Senate bill, - it was very specific. It used phrases to indicate that intention to break copyright laws had to be apparent and demonstrated AND providing financial or commercial gain in order for the bill's purpose to apply. Despite the fact that some of these specifics were vaguely defined and thereby brooked the potential for abuse, if you had faith in our judicial system, you could rest easier to believe that it probably wouldn't be abused.
The SOPA has no such specific language within the bill. Instead, it seems to rely on previously passed laws and sections of the US Code which already define what would and wouldn't be considered a crime. It's partially because of this that much of the hype we've seen recently has exploded across the web: Congress wrote a bill that we regular folks can't understand entirely without spending a few hours becoming acquainted with legal jargon and laws already on the books. There's also a troubling part in the bill that seems to greatly expand which sites the bill covers:
Sounds creepy and vague, hmm? A portion of a site that merely has the ability to allow for piracy could potentially be subject to this bill? Legal analysis I read never really specifically mentioned this portion of the bill, and just stated generically that prior laws already define and limit the bill's scope. To be honest, I don't know if that's true or not, and I’m not the only one. - More on that later, though.
So Jacks, what's the big deal? What are these bills about?
Ultimately, I think the bills are trying to clarify what a copyright can protect and give teeth to the Attorney General so he can pursue the violators. As you guys are well aware, with the explosion of the internet, there are new developments today that ten years ago, we didn't even think possible. For instance, years ago, new laws made it illegal to download certain things, so what do people do today? We stream instead. It's not a download!! Add to that the fact that the web is very much worldwide, in which case foreign sites aren't actually held to US laws and regs, and you come up with some complicated legal situations.
The big deal is this: The Internet is the place we often refer to as the last truly free place in the world. As such, Governments are always attempting to devise ways to regulate it, but aside from the general impossibility to truly regulate such a vast construct, We the People tend to react very negatively whenever any laws threaten to limit our expression there. This is, in my opinion, a good thing, because at least it demonstrates we're willing to fight for a plane of freedom - a worldwide one, at that.
So will Uncle Sam and Big Hollywood/Record Labels be able to nuke websites they don't like unilaterally?
No. Part of the reason why the bills are so long is because there's a specific legal process the Attorney General has to follow. That legal process includes a court and judge giving authorization to institute these new measures. This means that the websites involved can't be arbitrarily picked out just because Warner Bros doesn't like them: the Attorney General will have to demonstrate that the law is clearly being broken in order for the judge to allow the actions to proceed.
Can that be abused? Of course it can. We're talking about humans, and humans in government to make things even worse. BUT the court system is, by and large, on the up & up when it comes to protecting individual rights.
Does the bill result in attacking fans like me who like to watch/make fanvids, make covers of my favorite songs, or even write fanfic?
My initial answer was not by a long shot, and by and large, I still think that's true. I can say it doesn't intend to, and I can also say I don't think so without several court cases that would have to reverse case law and other legislation, but Wednesday, SOPA lost backing of some Tech Giants because of its vagueness.
You see, among other possible logical loopholes that may be present, SOPA clearly defines everything in the bill except for two key items: Entity & Reasonable Measures. (At least, these are the two that I, random internet chick, picked up on.) Nowhere in the bill did I find user/citizen/customer etc defined as under this bill's jurisdiction. -Meaning that you wouldn't get off completely free, but it seemed that this bill wasn't written to go after individual users so much as the sites.- However, "entities," undefined, are subject to this bill's punishments and restrictions. ("Reasonable Measures" are only applicable to what the sites/owners/registrants themselves need to do in the way of prevention.) When I was reading the bill, because I'm not a lawyer, I wasn't sure who was actually covered and affected, and what all those loopholes could possibly be.
Apparently, Google and these other 23 tech giants are concerned about what all that legalese and vagueness could mean as well.
On the other hand, it is important to note that this law will result in these private corporations doing a lot more than what they're doing now to accommodate the law. For instance, they'll be responsible for cutting off access to these sites and any transactions on them should they receive an order to do so within 5 days. Google, who has always been against SOPA, may just be against having to come up with the additional infrastructure to support those demands.
So overall Jacks, do you support the bill?
Ehh… I’m gonna go with the Tech Giants’ position: ensure that ALL rights are secure first before passage. Otherwise, I think stopping foreign websites which make money off selling copyrighted material is a good thing. Not sure if I agree with forcing private industries to block access to those sites, though… That seems like a slippery slope to me.
That said, considering everything else facing our country at this time? No, not really. We have troops overseas facing new and dangerous complications, a weak economy with high unemployment, and a national debt out of control. Yet THIS is what Congress decides to tackle? I almost feel guilty writing this; let the misinformation abound, if only it will impact the election and ensure none of these morons get back into office again!
Below are a very few of the articles I read. I uh… lost the document that had all my other sources. Epic fail? Yes. >.>
http://www.readwriteweb.com/enterprise/2011/11/legal-analysis-of-sopa-protect.php
http://www.techspot.com/news/46381-sopa-loses-backing-of-tech-giants-amid-policy-concerns.html
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111026/12130616523/protect-ip-renamed-e-parasites-act-would-create-great-firewall-america.shtml <--An article AGAINST the bill
The Senate Protect IP Act
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s112-968
The House SOPA/E-PARASITE Act
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-3261
The question is, are they actually true? Should we really be panicking?
As a conservative, my knee-jerk reaction is to believe whatever the government is doing is bad, so I have to work against that bias. After researching the bill further, I don't think that's quite the case, but I have to admit that I do still have reservations about it. After all, good intentions often pave the road to destruction.
If this is a bill you're concerned about, I'd suggest reading at least the links provided below, if not my commentary that accompanies them. I am just some chick on the internet, after all.
For me, this is a topic of legislation I've followed off and on, pretty much just whenever it gets into the news. I have read the bills in addition to articles, both for and against the legislation. My intention with this post is not to sway you one way or another: just to help those of you concerned find out the facts of the bills.
You keep saying bills. How many are there?
There are two. The one in the Senate is called the Protect IP Act and the one in the House is called the Stop Online Piracy Act, SOPA, or the Enforcing and Protecting American Rights Against Sites Intent on Theft and Exploitation Act, E-PARASITE Act. The Senate bill was introduced earlier this year and tabled by a Dem Senator. SOPA is that bill's sibling in the other house of Congress.
Are there any differences between them?
Maybe. I'm not really sure, and the reason is because I'm not a lawyer.
When I initially read the Protect IP Act - the Senate bill, - it was very specific. It used phrases to indicate that intention to break copyright laws had to be apparent and demonstrated AND providing financial or commercial gain in order for the bill's purpose to apply. Despite the fact that some of these specifics were vaguely defined and thereby brooked the potential for abuse, if you had faith in our judicial system, you could rest easier to believe that it probably wouldn't be abused.
The SOPA has no such specific language within the bill. Instead, it seems to rely on previously passed laws and sections of the US Code which already define what would and wouldn't be considered a crime. It's partially because of this that much of the hype we've seen recently has exploded across the web: Congress wrote a bill that we regular folks can't understand entirely without spending a few hours becoming acquainted with legal jargon and laws already on the books. There's also a troubling part in the bill that seems to greatly expand which sites the bill covers:
(B) there is evidence that the Internet site or portion thereof is intended to offer or provide—
(i) such goods and services,
(ii) access to such goods and services,
or
(iii) delivery of such goods and services,
to users located in the United States;
(C) the Internet site or portion thereof does not contain reasonable measures to prevent such goods and services from being obtained in or delivered to the United States;
Sounds creepy and vague, hmm? A portion of a site that merely has the ability to allow for piracy could potentially be subject to this bill? Legal analysis I read never really specifically mentioned this portion of the bill, and just stated generically that prior laws already define and limit the bill's scope. To be honest, I don't know if that's true or not, and I’m not the only one. - More on that later, though.
So Jacks, what's the big deal? What are these bills about?
Ultimately, I think the bills are trying to clarify what a copyright can protect and give teeth to the Attorney General so he can pursue the violators. As you guys are well aware, with the explosion of the internet, there are new developments today that ten years ago, we didn't even think possible. For instance, years ago, new laws made it illegal to download certain things, so what do people do today? We stream instead. It's not a download!! Add to that the fact that the web is very much worldwide, in which case foreign sites aren't actually held to US laws and regs, and you come up with some complicated legal situations.
The big deal is this: The Internet is the place we often refer to as the last truly free place in the world. As such, Governments are always attempting to devise ways to regulate it, but aside from the general impossibility to truly regulate such a vast construct, We the People tend to react very negatively whenever any laws threaten to limit our expression there. This is, in my opinion, a good thing, because at least it demonstrates we're willing to fight for a plane of freedom - a worldwide one, at that.
So will Uncle Sam and Big Hollywood/Record Labels be able to nuke websites they don't like unilaterally?
No. Part of the reason why the bills are so long is because there's a specific legal process the Attorney General has to follow. That legal process includes a court and judge giving authorization to institute these new measures. This means that the websites involved can't be arbitrarily picked out just because Warner Bros doesn't like them: the Attorney General will have to demonstrate that the law is clearly being broken in order for the judge to allow the actions to proceed.
Can that be abused? Of course it can. We're talking about humans, and humans in government to make things even worse. BUT the court system is, by and large, on the up & up when it comes to protecting individual rights.
Does the bill result in attacking fans like me who like to watch/make fanvids, make covers of my favorite songs, or even write fanfic?
My initial answer was not by a long shot, and by and large, I still think that's true. I can say it doesn't intend to, and I can also say I don't think so without several court cases that would have to reverse case law and other legislation, but Wednesday, SOPA lost backing of some Tech Giants because of its vagueness.
After initially backing the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), the Business Software Alliance (BSA), which counts the likes of Apple, Microsoft, Adobe, Intel, Dell, Symantec and 23 other tech companies among its members, has withdrawn their support saying that valid and important questions concerning the bill have been raised and need answers.
In a statement released on Monday evening, BSA president and CEO Robert Holleyman said the alliance agreed with the basic goals but wanted a House Judiciary Committee to investigate whether the hotly debated and controversial legislation will cause unintended consequences.
"Valid and important questions have been raised about the bill. It is intended to get at the worst of the worst offenders. As it now stands, however, it could sweep in more than just truly egregious actors. To fix this problem, definitions of who can be the subject of legal actions and what remedies are imposed must be tightened and narrowed. Due process, free speech, and privacy are rights that cannot be compromised," he said.
You see, among other possible logical loopholes that may be present, SOPA clearly defines everything in the bill except for two key items: Entity & Reasonable Measures. (At least, these are the two that I, random internet chick, picked up on.) Nowhere in the bill did I find user/citizen/customer etc defined as under this bill's jurisdiction. -Meaning that you wouldn't get off completely free, but it seemed that this bill wasn't written to go after individual users so much as the sites.- However, "entities," undefined, are subject to this bill's punishments and restrictions. ("Reasonable Measures" are only applicable to what the sites/owners/registrants themselves need to do in the way of prevention.) When I was reading the bill, because I'm not a lawyer, I wasn't sure who was actually covered and affected, and what all those loopholes could possibly be.
Apparently, Google and these other 23 tech giants are concerned about what all that legalese and vagueness could mean as well.
On the other hand, it is important to note that this law will result in these private corporations doing a lot more than what they're doing now to accommodate the law. For instance, they'll be responsible for cutting off access to these sites and any transactions on them should they receive an order to do so within 5 days. Google, who has always been against SOPA, may just be against having to come up with the additional infrastructure to support those demands.
So overall Jacks, do you support the bill?
Ehh… I’m gonna go with the Tech Giants’ position: ensure that ALL rights are secure first before passage. Otherwise, I think stopping foreign websites which make money off selling copyrighted material is a good thing. Not sure if I agree with forcing private industries to block access to those sites, though… That seems like a slippery slope to me.
That said, considering everything else facing our country at this time? No, not really. We have troops overseas facing new and dangerous complications, a weak economy with high unemployment, and a national debt out of control. Yet THIS is what Congress decides to tackle? I almost feel guilty writing this; let the misinformation abound, if only it will impact the election and ensure none of these morons get back into office again!
Below are a very few of the articles I read. I uh… lost the document that had all my other sources. Epic fail? Yes. >.>
http://www.readwriteweb.com/enterprise/2011/11/legal-analysis-of-sopa-protect.php
http://www.techspot.com/news/46381-sopa-loses-backing-of-tech-giants-amid-policy-concerns.html
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111026/12130616523/protect-ip-renamed-e-parasites-act-would-create-great-firewall-america.shtml <--An article AGAINST the bill
The Senate Protect IP Act
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s112-968
The House SOPA/E-PARASITE Act
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-3261
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject