SOPA --Internet freedom being threatened--

[gm0ney]

OK, I'm not sure, but I think this is pretty time sensitive.

The Young Turks did a segment on this issue:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=sE5WlyQRvaM

There is another one, but I can't remember the name...
Basically, it threatens our ability to link to sites (like I just did above) on youtube, facebook and other networking sites for people to share/ inform/ comment/ discuss in this way which is very useful and informative.

I would like to see/ make a proposal on this issue by or before next Monday's meeting.
Any ideas on what to do about this issue?

[rwlangbe]

United States 112th Congress House Bill 3261

---

Sec.2.Savings and Severability Clauses
A: Savings Clauses
1 – First Amendment – Nothing in this Act shall be construed to impose a prior restraint on free speech or the press protected under the 1st Amendment to the Constitution
2- Title 17 Liability – Nothing in title 1 shall be construed to enlarge or diminish liability, including vicarious or contributory liability, for any cause of action available under title 17, United States Code, including any limitations on liability under such title.
B: Severability – If one section of the Act is found unconstitutional, the section will be ‘severed’ and the remaining portions of the Act will remain in effect.

Title 1 – Combating Online Piracy
Section 101: Definitions
Defined Terms: Domain Name, Domain Name System Server, Domestic Domain Name, Domestic Internet Protocol Address, Domestic Internet Site, Foreign Domain Name, Foreign Internet Protocol Address, Foreign Internet Site, Including, Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, Internet, Internet Advertising Service, Internet Protocol, Internet Protocol Address, Internet Protocol Allocation Entity, Internet Search Engine, Internet Site, Lanham Act, Nonauthoritative Domain Name Server, Owner; Operator, Payment Network Provider, Service Provider, U.S.-Directed Site, United States
Important Definitions –
Domestic Domain Name: The term “domestic domain name” means a server or other mechanism used to provide the Internet protocol address associated with a domain name.
Foreign Domain Name: The term “foreign domain name” means a domain name that is not a domestic domain name
U.S.-Directed Site - The term ‘‘U.S.-directed site’’ means an Internet site or portion there of that is used to conduct business directed to residents of the United States, or that otherwise demonstrates the existence of minimum contacts sufficient for the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the owner or operator of the Internet site consistent with the Constitution of the United States, based on relevant evidence that may include whether—
(A) the Internet site is used to provide goods or services to users located in the United States;
(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 pre17
vent such goods and services from being obtained in or delivered to the United States; and
(D) any prices for goods and services are indicated or billed in the currency of the United States.


Section 102: Action by Attorney General to Protect U.S. Customers and Prevent U.S. Support of Foreign Infringing Sites
Directed at “Foreign Infringing Sites” – Sites that are directed at or used by people in the United States, if the owner/operator of the site is committing a criminal violation punishable under sections 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2319B, 2320, or chapter 90 of title 18, United States Code the Attorney General would be able to seize the website and prevent search engines from linking to the websites.
2319 : Criminal Infringement of a Copyright
2319A: CRIMINAL INFRINGEMENT OF A COPYRIGHTUNAUTHORIZED FIXATION OF AND TRAFFICKING IN SOUND RECORDINGS AND MUSIC VIDEOS OF LIVE MUSICAL PERFORMANCES
2319B: UNAUTHORIZED RECORDING OF MOTION PICTURES IN A MOTION PICTURE EXHIBITION FACILITY
2320: Trafficking in counterfeit goods or services
Chapter 90: Protection of Trade Secrets

Section 103: Market-Based System to Protect U.S. Customers and Prevent U.S. Funding of Sites Dedicated to Theft of U.S. Property
Section 104: Immunity for Taking Voluntary Action against Sites Dedicated to Theft of U.S. Property
If a website voluntarily stops someone on their own, they cannot be sued. The sites would have to blantantly and knowingly be Dedicated to Theft of U.S. Property
Section 105: Immunity for Taking Voluntary Action against Sites that Endanger Public Health
Again, if a website stops someone from 'Endangering Public Health' on their own - they can't be sued. The threshold seems low and could create some interpretation issues as to what exactly is 'Endangering Public Health
Section 106:Guidelines and Study
Sets up funding for the AG Office to track and study the issue.
Section 107: Denying U.S. Capital to Notorious Foreign Infringers

Title 2- Additional Enhancements to Combat Intellectual Property Theft
Section 201: Streaming of Copyrighted Works in Violation of Criminal Law
Section 202: Trafficking in Inherently Dangerous Goods or Services
Section 203: Protecting U.S. Businesses from Foreign and Economic Espionage
Section 204: Amendments to Sentencing Guidelines
Section 205: Defending Intellectual Property Rights Abroad

[Solus Hospes]

I'm a little confused... are they trying to stop us from linking to other sites period or just sites with pirated material, i.e. music, movies, tv, etc?

[rwlangbe]

The law isn't directly involved with linking to other sites at all, but there is a fear the law will unintentionally affect linking to avoid complications.

Currently, there are laws against Domestic (U.S. Based) sites from sending copyrighted material over the Internet. However, foreign operated websites (China, etc) do copy intellectual property from the U.S., and laws currently cannot stop them from transmitting Pirated Movies, music, etc. This law aims to stop 'Foreign' operated websites from transmitting pirated/illegal content into the United States.

The problem and much of the confusion is with the details. The law gives the Attorney General more power to seize foreign domains, and have search engines not link to them. Honestly, most of this would have not been an issue if they would have left off the bit about the search engines. Page 15 of the law, line 11 says, "Internet Search Engines - A provider of the Internet search engine shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures, as expeditiously as possible, but in any case within five days after being served with a copy of the order." -- Unclear what would happen to a search engine if they refused, are they in collusion?

And the idea that if one section of a website, however small, (a single link) were connected to a copyrighted song, etc then the entire website is guilty of pirating. However, the language in the law clearly states, the website operator must knowingly and intentionally be in violation of the current anti-copyright law.

The feeling is that if one strand of the Internet is connected to the illegal content then everyone will be guilty because the whole Internet is so linked together.

In gm0ney's reference to the youtube link, the fear is that if one youtube video is a copyright violation then everyone that links to any youtube video will be guilty because of the broadness of the law. Most of the fear is baseless because of provisions in the law that would require an operator intentionally violate the current anti-copyright law.

The title 2 of the law is a little more vague, and I haven't finished reading all of it yet.