Tom's Hardware's take on SOPA

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/toms-hardware-sopa-Stop-Online-Piracy-Act-PROTECT-IP-Senate,14393.html

by masonhensley • 15 years ago

144 14 15 years ago

notatoad2• 15 years ago

thanks for posting this - it's probably the most coherent, straightforward, and relatable piece i've seen so far on SOPA.

meanguy5• 15 years ago

"It would require web services like YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter to monitor and aggressively filter everything all users upload."

False. It's the opposite actually. A site continues to have existing safe harbor protection UNLESS it does this. Even Congress knows you can't put this type of burden on sites.

"It would deny site owners due process of law, by initiating a DNS blacklisting based solely on a good faith assertion by an individual copyright or intellectual property owner."

False. Individuals and corporations cannot DNS blacklist, or block from Google results. That's only allowed based on a request from the Attorney General, requires approval of a Judge, and only applies to foreign companies that explicitly and solely exist for the purpose of copyright infringement.

In short, it's the worst article I've ever seen on Tom's Hardware. And like watching something on CNN when you clearly know more about it than they do, I'm left to wonder if they're this wrong on everything, or it's just a rare case of them talking about something they know absolutely nothing about.

But I do see why we're so worried about politics affecting the web. We're not good at it and we're too lazy to actually read the proposals. We sure are great at moving incorrect information around, though!

bentlegen• 15 years ago

Instead of calling out hearsay with your own hearsay, why not cite the relevant pieces of the legislation?

JoshTriplett• 15 years ago

> False. It's the opposite actually. A site continues to have existing safe harbor protection UNLESS it does this. Even Congress knows you can't put this type of burden on sites.

So any site can continue to operate as long as they pointedly don't police user content? Considering that would make the legislation entirely ineffective, I suspect it'll get conveniently ignored. It would also then remove the ability of sites to enforce their own terms of service on user content, for fear of losing protection. (Consider that YouTube already lets copyright holders police user content, primarily because they got sued and more or less forced to. That would then make them lose their safe harbor.) And in any case, that would still force non-US sites to adhere to US regulations or get blocked, which remains a serious problem given the set of regulations the US would like to enforce on sites.

> False. Individuals and corporations cannot DNS blacklist, or block from Google results. That's only allowed based on a request from the Attorney General, requires approval of a Judge, and only applies to foreign companies that explicitly and solely exist for the purpose of copyright infringement.

Oh, and that makes it OK then? That process seems likely to become a rubber stamp, especially for requests made by the companies that bought and paid for this legislation in the first place.

And considering that the congresscritters that approve the legislation often don't bother reading it before doing so, and rely on summaries instead, I'd hardly fault Tom's Hardware for relying on the general summaries provided by other technical sources concerned about this legislation. SOPA has also undergone numerous changes and amendments since its introduction, none of which make it acceptable, but many of which make the details somewhat less concrete. The article got the major points right, and the details close to right.

kbolino• 15 years ago

Even so--and like others, I'd rather see citations than hearsay--why is it necessary? The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) already provides a safe harbor provision, and nothing has stopped ICE from taking down whole domains of foreign and domestic websites already.

So why shill for it?

erickhill• 15 years ago

Any UGC-based site should be very, very concerned. It is beyond worrisome that something as described in the article (the UG video upload and the potential legal implications) could be made into law.

This article really brings it home.

jader201• 15 years ago

Something that occurred to me when reading this that had not occurred to me before.

This could open up a new channel for attacks against web sites. Forget about those that are just posting content with the intent of sharing. What about those that simply post/upload copyrighted content with the sole intent of bringing your site down.

Another thing that occurred, was that there is so much of this going on today, that unless people drastically change their habits, or courts are very selective with who they prosecute, every owner of every site on the web will end up in court.

dangrossman• 15 years ago

While the wording isn't set in stone yet, SOPA targets foreign entities, meaning the site has to be owned by someone outside the US. It also creates private rights of action, meaning individuals and corporations bringing their own suits in court, not just government prosecutors.

So if SOPA passed today, every site on the web won't end up in court, but a big rightsholder with good crawling technology like Getty (the stock photo company with a litigation machine already in place) has a whole new way to prosecute-en-masse... this time with the ability to cut off payments and advertising for domains that would've simply ignored their threats in the past.

lightcatcher• 15 years ago

I hadn't taken the time to learn anything about SOPA (mostly ignored the protests) until this. This article was great because its a straightforward account, and it prompted me to write a SOPA letter to my representatives.

Tom's Hardware's take on SOPA

Related Stories