Draconian Cuts to Education Planned  |   Home  |   Recall Petitions Filed

Congress must not pass SOPA

My column for the Daily News is online. It’s called, “Congress must not pass SOPA.”

Posted by Owen at 0940 hrs
Politics + Politics - General + Politics - Wisconsin + Technology

1. As someone who makes a living on software and is certainly in favor of IP protection, I completely agree with Owen that SOPA is not the answer. Even in the electronic age, due process must be followed.

   Posted by Charlie Hillman on January 17, 2012 at 0955 hrs
   
   
   

2. I admit that this was kind of a hard column to write. I could go on and on about the technical problems, security concerns, etc. of what it would take to implement SOPA but I thought as soon as I wrote “intrusive deep packet inspection,” half the people reading would flip the page.

   Posted by Owen on January 17, 2012 at 1506 hrs
   
   
   

3. For once I think everyone is in agreement, lets hope that is enough.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 17, 2012 at 1629 hrs
   
   
   

4. My God Owen, not you too!  This is getting ridiculous.  I’ve spent the last month commenting all over the internet on sites ranging from legal to technological to pop culture asking someone - anyone - to explain a specific problem with SOPA and I have yet to get a single legitimate response.

   SOPA only applies to infringing websites, and those are defined very narrowly to include only sites that are designed or operated solely for the purpose of piracy, have only a trivial or superficial purpose beyond piracy, or hold themselves out in advertising as piracy sites.  How could that ever possibly implicate Youtube or Craigslist?  Youtube contains a ton of infringing material, but no one would ever claim that piracy is its sole, or even primary purpose.  That seems to be the big scare point that’s taken the internet by storm though, even though it is 100% impossible under the bill as drafted.

   The technological concerns are invalid too, especially after the markup in December that included a savings clause specifically disallowing DNS filtering or anything that could even remotely damage internet stability or security.  Even without that savings clause there’s no technical direction or requirements in the bill.  It’s all very vague when it comes to specific enforcement, but the phrase “reasonable and technologically feasible” is used every time enforcement is discussed, and no court is going to try to tell internet people what’s technologically feasible or reasonable in their own industry. 

   Same thing with the privacy concerns.  I don’t think they were ever really an issue to begin with, but they’ve been addressed by a savings clause just like DNS filtering to make it perfectly clear. 

   There’s a reason this bill was non-controversial and enjoyed wide bipartisan support before the little internet dipshits on Reddit caught wind of it.  Except for the self-enforcement section this isn’t really even a new development in the law.  The section 102 DOJ jurisdiction all flows from recent case law and the section 103 civil remedies follow basically the same procedure and use the same language as the DMCA, except SOPA skips the lawyers by allowing for self-enforcement (with open-ended damages for reckless or overzealous enforcement efforts, it’s worth noting). 

   In fact, I think there are fewer due process concerns under SOPA than under the DMCA given the exceptionally easy counter-notification requirements in SOPA.  The counter-notification is so easy because SOPA is designed to get at foreign infringers outside US jurisdiction who ignore legal proceedings.  If some Russian mafia dude in Eastern Europe puts up a 99 cent mp3 piracy site and ignores a summons and complaint under the DMCA that’s the end of it.  Nothing more the copyright holder can do if mafia guy refuses to submit to US civil court jurisdiciton.  But if that same Russian mafia pirate ignores a SOPA letter, then his business partners have to start cutting him off and when the money is gone, his criminal enterprise will dry up.  If he’s been wrongly accused he can send out a simple letter to that effect, and then it’s back to trying to get him into US civil court. 

   I really don’t see the problem with SOPA (I haven’t looked into PIPA much at all though).  If anything I think all this internet protesting is part of the tea party occupation recall phenomenon that’s swept this country over the last 5 years.  Scary that it’s swept up more and more otherwise seemingly smart, rational people, but that’s the nature of the beast.  They don’t call it populism for nothing.  I just wonder where the bottom is.  I guess we’re going to find out next time some fringe internet group who doesn’t know why its angry, and doesn’t know what it wants is able to grind the US Congress to a halt.  Good times.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 17, 2012 at 1637 hrs
   
   
   

5. Wow for once we agree. @jason—-here’s a great little write up: http://blog.reddit.com/2012/01/stopped-they-must-be-on-this-all.html

   Posted by nacho on January 17, 2012 at 2044 hrs
   
   
   

6. Actually, Reddit has a better explanation now.
   http://blog.reddit.com/2012/01/technical-examination-of-sopa-and.html

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 18, 2012 at 1031 hrs
   
   
   

7. To prevent a repeat in history of the abuse of internet copyright law, any new legislation must be drafted with the following:

   1. Airtight, technically sound definitions.
   2. Heavy input from the technology sector. Complex technology legislation should not be drafted by someone who barely has a working knowledge of the internet.
   3. Checks and balances ensuring that due-process can be invoked before, during, and after any action is taken.
   4. Clear repercussions for entities utilizing the legislation in an abusive manner.

   From JonnyV’s link.

   Both this link and Jason’s explanation are over my head, but this section from the reddit guy stuck out to me.
   1.  These definitions change all the time with new invention.  Legislation could be interpretively out of date before it is enacted.  Sorry, but definitions have to be ‘loose’ IMO.
   2.  True, but where you get your help is like giving out tax loopholes.  Guaranteed that the really savvy technocrats will keep a loophole or two open for his misuse.
   3.  When is there ever not enough room for lawyers to make millions?
   4.  Government has never policed itself before, why start for the internet?

   While I love the internet as an information tool, I think it has had a negative impact overall as a social media and it has been catastrophic to non-internet small business.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 19, 2012 at 0940 hrs
   
   
   

8. That reddit “explanation” is the exact kind of thing I’m talking about.  It’s like they never even looked at the bills except to strip out language, misunderstand it, and cite it out of context.  It reminds me a great deal of all the amatuer statutory interpretation that was being done on Act 11 here in Wisconsin.  I really don’t understand why people who have no idea what they’re talking about insist on talking the loudest, but that’s the new normal.

   And the big players who are leading the show are all constantly contradicting eachother.  The Electronic Frontier Foundation is screaming about a duty to monitor that is explictly not required under SOPA, which the reddit link above acknowledges.  But the reddit dummies are all obsessed with the domicile of the alleged infringer, which isn’t really an issue at all, because the treatment is the same once jurisdiction (or quasi-jurisdiction) has been established. 

   It’s all just insane.  It’s really the culmination of making politics a hobby that’s fed by the entertainment industry for the last 30 years.  Reality is boring.  SOPA is pretty mundane.  But people want sexy, controversial excitement, and the media and other interested parties are perfecctly willing to manufacture and sell it, regardless of the consequences on real public policy.  And it’s going to get much, much worse.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 19, 2012 at 1035 hrs
   
   
   

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.