Sal Khan explains SOPA / PIPA

http://www.khanacademy.org/video/sopa-and-pipa?playlist=American+Civic

by marcia • 15 years ago

491 65 15 years ago

kamens• 15 years ago

Sal showed up at our weekly company picnic/lunch today and said something like, "All these sites are down cuz of SOPA, but everything I read is still so hard to understand," so he dove in and made this this morning. Pretty cool.

WestCoastJustin• 15 years ago

Personally, I think this is exactly what is needed. My girlfriend and I are home from work today because of a snow storm, and she wanted to check out thechive.com, but they are down protesting SOPA. I was explaining to her what SOPA is, and why I think it is a bad idea. She didn't want to read pages of material or call someone since we don't live in the States. I could have just pointed her to the 10 minute video and let her see for herself.

kmfrk• 15 years ago

I find it really disappointing that the informational response to SOPA has been quantitative and not qualitative. Everyone and their dog have made (1) an infographic, (2) a video, and (3) a black-out or banner script.

This only serves to underscore what so many people don't get most of the time: the availability of information is not binary nor an issue necessarily aided by a proliferation of resources on the matter.

We see the same thing when we are teaching ourselves and others programming and git(!), and we would do well to see our failure to educate people on something so many intelligent and affluent people in technology oppose as a wake-up call in this issue and all other issues that depend on our ability to explain them and bring them to people's attention.

It's a perfect coincidence that we needed Sal Khan of all people to show us this - once again.

marshray• 15 years ago

Oooh oooh! Brilliant!

Do you think we can get him to do a module on git?!

swalsh• 15 years ago

I am convinced that Sal Khan's contribution to education is so significant his work will be used in classrooms generations from now... though perhaps in the form of some kind of technological derivative.

So congrats! You just had lunch with the historical equivalent of Einstein.

rhizome3• 15 years ago

The guy really deserves some kind of recognition, but I don't think there's a Nobel or Pulitzer for education (telling).

spicyj2• 15 years ago

> So congrats! You just had lunch with the historical equivalent of Einstein.

kamens is the lead dev at Khan Academy, so such lunches are not a rare thing for him. :)

wtvanhest• 15 years ago

Congress should hire him to explain to them all the laws they are creating.

Lewton• 15 years ago

Shows how effective khanacademy.org is when, after watching the entire video, I discovered I wasn't logged in and was disappointed I wouldn't get my points!

corysama• 15 years ago

The Vision of the Gamepocalypse is coming true. :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NzFCfZMBkU&t=2m10s

stcredzero• 15 years ago

Gamepocalypse already happened. Money is just a point system.

solipsist• 15 years ago

http://bjk5.com/post/14059107433/after-giving-logged-out-use...

koops• 15 years ago

All the blackout banners should link to this video.

melvinram• 15 years ago

It's a YouTube video. They can just embed it on the page.

thelema314• 15 years ago

A very nice video, except the particular passage referred to has the clause "designed for..., has only limited purpose or use other than, or is marketed for..." violating various laws. I don't think any of his examples would fall under any of these categories.

aero142• 15 years ago

I find it disturbing that even though I am still against SOPA and the likes, that the opposition seems to be willfully ignoring this portion. Unless I am totally misreading it, it would be very difficult for the likes of Youtube or Facebook to be included.

The language is still dangerous though, because the designed for clause seems to open things up. I can easily see BitTorrent being brought in to be "designed for" downloading illegal movies, because judges aren't likely to think downloading linux distributions is very significant alternative use. The thing that concerns me is that smaller companies or companies outside of the mainstream might not get much credit for having other purposes. Imagine if reddit had r/stealmovies, a judge might not care much about the rest of it if there are thousands of people using it to talk about infringing.

There is enough wrong with this bill to oppose it without resorting to hyperbolic threats.

edit: Thinking about it more, youtube might be a great example. Current youtube won't be brought down with this, but youtube in it's infancy very well might have been stomped out. Imagine explaining to a Judge, "no, you don't understand. Right now it might be used for mostly unauthorized music videos, but showing home videos of cats is going to be HUGE!"

pemulis• 15 years ago

The important part, as the video points out, is the phrase "enables or facilitates."

Google, Facebook, Youtube, and other sites that either allow user-generated content or generate links through web crawlers are "offering goods or services in a manner that (...) enables or facilitates [copyright violations]." Since linking facilitates copyright violation, this affects every site that doesn't manually vet every single link it makes.

toyg• 15 years ago

The problem is actually with the definition of infringing site: "The term 'U.S.-directed site' means an Internet site or portion thereof that is used to conduct business directed to residents of the United States".

By this definition, a Youtube channel of people posting rickroll mashups and served, say, under a .fr domain, without paying Rick Astley, would make Youtube an infringing site as a whole. A Google group dedicated to memes based on captions of The Hurt Locker and served under the .za domain would make Google an infringing site as a whole. A subreddit dedicated to... you get the idea.

pkteison• 15 years ago

A farmer has successfully been prosecuted under the -Interstate Commerce Clause- for growing his own wheat on his own land for his own use. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

It never left a state, it never left his farm, it was not for sale, it is definitely not interstate commerce, yet he violated the interstate commerce clause (reasoning was that if he had not grown his own wheat, he would have had to buy some, which would affect the market, which would affect interstate commerce.)

It's because of things like this that cause people to interpret legal language in the worst possible imaginable light - 'very difficult' has happened many times.

So I think it's quite reasonable to assume that at some point Youtube and Facebook will be found to be "...marketed by its operator or another acting in concert with that operator for use in offering goods or services in a manner that facilitates [illegal things]"

One ad that says "Post comments without logging in!" would be sufficient to meet the letter of that language. You really think this is a 'hyperbolic threat'?

stevelosh• 15 years ago

I'm not a lawyer, but it certainly sounds like his examples fit.

Here's the text:

    [A site is illegal if] the U.S.-directed site is primarily designed or
    operated for the purpose of, has only limited purpose or use other than, or
    is marketed by its operator or another acting in concert with that operator
    for use in, offering goods or services in a manner that engages in, enables,
    or facilitates [various illegal stuff]

Group it according to the boolen ORs in there:

    the U.S.-directed site is
    
    (
        primarily designed or operated for the purpose of,
        has only limited purpose or use other than,
        or is marketed by its operator or another acting in concert with that operator for use in,
    )

    offering goods or services in a manner that

    (
        engages in,
        enables,
        or facilitates
    )

Now choose one of each from the OR'ed groups:

    the U.S.-directed site is

    (
    *** primarily designed or operated for the purpose of,
        has only limited purpose or use other than,
        or is marketed by its operator or another acting in concert with that operator for use in,
    )

    offering goods or services in a manner that

    (
        engages in,
        enables,
    *** or facilitates
    )

And we get:

    [A site is illegal if] the U.S.-directed site is
    primarily designed or operated for the purpose of,
    offering goods or services in a manner that
    facilitates [various illegal stuff]

Youtube is primarily designed for the purpose of offering a service: uploading videos.

This service (uploading videos) facilitates various illegal stuff (like copyright infringement).

tzs2• 15 years ago

Your second left parenthesis belongs one line higher. A more clear way to read it is to write out four copies of it, and then in the first copy delete or clauses 2, 3, and 4. In the second copy delete or clauses 1, 3, and 4, and so on. That gives a separate complete sentence for each of the four ways you can run afoul of that section:

    A site is illegal if] the U.S.-directed site is primarily
    designed for use in offering goods or services in a manner
    that engages in, enables, or facilitates...

    A site is illegal if] the U.S.-directed site is operated for
    the purpose of offering goods or services in a manner that
    engages in, enables, or facilitates...

    A site is illegal if] the U.S.-directed site has only
    limited purpose or use other than offering goods or services
    in a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates...

    A site is illegal if] the U.S.-directed site is marketed by
    its operator or another acting in concert with that operator
    for use in offering goods or services in a manner that
    engages in, enables, or facilitates...

YouTube fails to fall under the first because it is not primarily designed to engage in, enable, or facilitate infringing. It fails to fall under the second because it is not operated for those purposes. It fails to fall under the third because although it does get used for the prohibit activities, it has substantial legitimate use. It fails to fall under the fourth because Google does not market it as an infringing tool--indeed, they discourage infringement.

The section that YouTube (and Reddit, and most other legitimate sites with user content) are in danger of running afoul of is the section that says a US-directed site is a site dedicated to the theft of US property if it:

    is taking, or has taken, deliberate actions to avoid confirming a
    high probability of the use of the U.S.-directed site to carry out
    acts that constitute a violation of section 501 or 1201 of title 17,
    United States Code

Some think this will requires the sites to put a lot of effort into actively monitoring user generated content and taking down things that might be illegal, as opposed to current law where they have only have to deal with things specifically brought to their notice via a DMCA notification. The section is sufficiently unclear that that is a reasonable reading of it.

hesitz5• 15 years ago

I agree. It's unpleasant to see him simply ignore the limiting language. He focuses over half the video on the "enables, or facilitates" clause, spreading the false impression that the provision says _any_ site that "enables or facilitates" could be taken down under SOPA. I am a lawyer, but it doesn't (or shouldn't) take a lawyer to see that the provision has fairly strong requirements other than just "enabling" or "facilitating" other violations.

Sorry, but I think spreading popular arguments along these lines is a bad thing. It leaves the SOPA-advocates with the strong response, "Read more closely, you've misread the provision." Now it may be that the provision as a whole is too broadly written, poorly written, too vague and uncertain, but when the SOPA-opponent makes the original mistake of misreading entirely it's hard to win back the desired position of being an authority on why SOPA is bad.

dhimes5• 15 years ago

He is saying that there are a lot of sites that offer services which could enable or facilitate pirating, because the terms 'enable' and 'facilitate' are not particularly limited in scope.

It seems clear to me.

zmmmmm3• 15 years ago

The "in a manner" that you omitted is crucial here. The purpose of the site doesn't have to be for doing the illegal things. The purpose of the site just has to be something that happens "in a manner" that enables or facilitates the illegal things.

So YouTube - primary purpose is uploading videos, not illegal. But YouTube doing that in the "manner" of allowing anonymous internet users to upload anything they want - facilitates the illegal things.

So I disagree with you based on those few words. Even if you think your point stands, I'd posit the language is so dangerously ambiguous that it should be a problem in itself that ensures it never makes it into law.

Xurinos• 15 years ago

It looks like the wording of this clause has people in conflict about its meaning. Isn't that enough to suggest that it is poorly written and can result in some judge's interpretation in the wrong direction expanding the law's power?

nextparadigms• 15 years ago

Linking is not a crime. If we'll ever make any "Internet Freedom" laws or Constitutional Amendments, that definitely needs to be in there.

The 1st Amendment should already cover linking as speech, but apparently MPAA/RIAA and some in Congress disagree.

CamperBob2• 15 years ago

Linking most definitely is already a crime in the US. The time to protest it was eleven years ago: http://www.2600.com/news/view/article/299

Every move in defense of liberty on the Web since then has been a rear-guard action.

mr_luc• 15 years ago

It would make sense to have this as a central tenet of internet protection legislation.

crististm2• 15 years ago

I thought I knew how creepy SOPA/PIPA are

samstave2• 15 years ago

We need S.O.P.A:

Stop Outrageous Political Assholes.

Did anyone here see the letter from the CEO of the MPAA (who happens to also be a senator) chriss dodd today, which said that this SOPA blackouts are a gimmick and that we are corporate pawns for blacking out in protest?

Is it enraging to anyone else that he is allowed to be the CEO of the MPAA AND a senator at the same time where he can both write and benefit from legislation in his interests?

tzjames• 15 years ago

Actually Chris Dodd is a former Senator of Connecticut. His term ended in 2010.

jfarmer• 15 years ago

He lost the election in 2010, but his term ended in 2011. He became CEO of the MPAA two months later.

thebigshane• 15 years ago

   United States Senator from Connecticut
   In office January 3, 1981 – January 3, 2011

   On March 1, 2011, the Motion Picture Association of 
   America announced that Dodd will head that organization

He's not a senator anymore and was never senator and MPAA Chairman at the same time. I know wikipedia is "down" so it's harder to check facts. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Dodd?banner=false]

samstave2• 15 years ago

Thanks!

I have heard his name enough in the media recently, associated with the credit crisis, as referred to as senator, that I hadn't realized he was out.

Still does not reduce my level of disdain for him.

niels_olson2• 15 years ago

Better permalink to Sal Khan's explanation of SOPA

http://khanacademy.org/video?v=tzqMoOk9NWc

spicyj2• 15 years ago

There's nothing wrong with the original link. (I'm KA intern/part-time and the submitter is a full-time KA dev.)

niels_olson2• 14 years ago

I didn't realize the organization had a plan to shephard quirky links indefinitely

digvan• 15 years ago

We are hosting a discussion about #SOPA tonight at TooTchat. Come and join us. http://bit.ly/AiomgP

dlikhten• 15 years ago

Sal, hope you are on HN because I have to say, you f-ing rule. I don't think anyone could have done a better job explaining it.

crististm2• 15 years ago

so using ssh would be now illegal?

omarv• 15 years ago

What is the most practical way to send this video to the members of Congress so they can become better educated on the ramifications of these bills?

EGreg• 15 years ago

Once again Salman Khan explains what needed explaining to many people.

However, SOPA has changed since then and now * specifically only applies to foreign sites * excludes the DNS cutoff

It is still "flawed", as Darren Issa says, and I think the OPEN act, deputizing the ITC is actually way better. It would first offer the offending foreign sites a chance to enter into arbitration before taking any unilateral action against them by the USA.

Sal Khan explains SOPA / PIPA

Related Stories