Stop Online Piracy Act (Sopa): how it could affect UK based websites like Urban 75.

[bmd]

Firstly I'm not an expert on SOPA but I do feel quite strongly about the scattergun approach of this law. I also feel that there's an attempt to change something that has become a daily part of a lot of lives without any recourse to a consultation with those people. I am not for piracy but I also feel that this situation is partly made from the big entertainment corporation's decisions about their business models in the Internet era. They don't work but instead of addressing that, they want to change the Internet.

So...

SOPA is a law that's in the process of being passed (or not) in the US. It stands for Stop Online Piracy Act. It attempts to deal with online sites that traffic in illegally copied content, but at extreme cost of remaking the architecture of the internet itself.

How does SOPA work? Read the first two short paragraphs from here to get a good idea.

http://www.theverge.com/2011/12/22/2648219/stop-online-piracy-act-sopa-what-is-it

Why will it affect your use of U75?

These kinds of potential laws can raise a lot of hysterical reaction to them with very little substance and I think that has happened to a certain extent with SOPA. However, there is the potential with the massive powers that are being put forward, for this bill to be used as a sledgehammer to crack a nut. If, for instance, someone on here posts a copyright protected image and the copyright holder picks up on that and wants to immediately go down the litigation route then U75 could be blocked by your ISP until it's sorted. Then you will have to fanny about putting in place measures to get you onto U75 and that's assuming that Editor would keep it open whilst the case was ongoing.

How likely is that? I don't think it's very likely but it's certainly more likely with this bill than without it. Aren't theses laws already in place? Some are but the concern about this bill is more to do with what it suggests America wants to do about copyright infringements than about what it tries to tackle.

What can you do about it?

I don't know, perhaps someone on here could tell us?

 

[editor]

*I've moved this thread to UK news so that more people can see it.

 

[bmd]

Cheers! I was thinking General would be the most populated but you would be the best judge of that.

 

[equationgirl]

Hmmm.

As someone who works in IP, this is deeply worrying on a number of levels - one of them being that it sounds very unlikely to work.

I'll do a bit of research and see if I can find more information on this. It sounds ludicrous enough to be implemented.

 

[ska invita]

Explainer: understanding Sopa
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2011/dec/23/sopa-stop-online-piracy-act?INTCMP=SRCH

 

[Libertad]

Who the fuck do the Yanks think they are ffs? Why don't we just tell them to do one?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Here's a reasonably accessible article on the implications from an technical security viewpoint.

http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2011/1115_cybersecurity_friedman.aspx

 

[editor]

Explainer: understanding Sopa
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2011/dec/23/sopa-stop-online-piracy-act?INTCMP=SRCH

Here's the text from that excellent video:

It's pitched Hollywood and the music industry against the giants of Silicon Valley and the denizens of Capitol Hill.
The battle over a bill that aims to bear down on internet piracy has turned into a culture war over two American touchstones – free speech... and the economy.
The Stop Online Piracy Act – known as Sopa - is intended to blacklist renegade sites like Pirate Bay that share copyrighted films and music.
But critics say it creates the building blocks for a Great American Firewall – a catch-all clampdown that threatens internet mainstays like Google, Facebook and Youtube. They say it will curb creativity, cost jobs -and even stifle free speech.
Under the provisions of the bill, uploading clips of movies or TV shows to Facebook or YouTube could become a criminal act. Streaming of copyrighted content could land you with a five-year jail term.
One group that opposes the bill, Fight for the Future, even claimed Justin Bieber could go to prison for posting covers of Usher songs on YouTube.
The bill would also allow the Justice Department to get court orders against the providers of the unique addresses that label every site, known as domain name systems.
Critics argue that going after those who provide such addresses would amount to a fundamental attack on the plumbing of the internet – and would in any case be ineffective, since experience pirates are adept at finding other ways to get their sites up and running.
But despite the growing clamour of criticism, support for the bill is growing. Its backers argue that sales of counterfeit goods over the internet reached $135bn last year – and this argument has found favour in Congress.
The bill looks sure to pass in some form. A similar proposal - known as Protect IP – has broad support in Congress. It looks like Washington is listening to copyright holders and their powerful pals.
Silicon valley and free speech advocates are now working flat out to try and kill the bill.

 

[agricola]

An old man bemoans the corrosive effect of private money on political decision-making.

 

[Puddy_Tat]

What can you do about it?

while opinion is divided as to the effectiveness of online petitions and that sort of thing, people making a fuss from around the world isn't going to do any harm.

Avaaz have an online petition which has got over 1,000,000 signatures so far.

I always wonder to what extent signing up to anything like that is pissing in the wind, though...

 

[ska invita]

Today's headline has Murdoch getting het up about the fact the bill is getting watered down - it looks as if the DNS blocking provision in the bill would be dropped. WIkipedia might go down for a day in protest too. Read for yourself! http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/jan/15/online-piracy-legislation-murdoch-obama?INTCMP=SRCH

(ETA just posted by agricola above)

So how might this effect urban? I guess if we post videos on here that infringe US copyright it would put urban in the firing line, is that it?

 

[free spirit]

some of the relevant information for foreign sites is below, copied from Wikipedia's lawyers statement on wiki.

Section 102

Section 102
A “foreign infringing site” is a:

• U.S. directed site:
  • Definition: Foreign Internet site used to conduct business directed to U.S. residents 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 U.S. Constitution; according doesn’t not cover such sites as .com, .org, .biz, etc.;
• Used by users in the U.S.; and
• Operated in a manner that would, if it were a domestic Internet site, subject it (or its associated domain name) to:
  • Seizure or forfeiture in the U.S. in an action brought by the Attorney General, by reason of an act prohibited by sections 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2319B, or 2320, or chapter 90, of 18 U.S.C.; or
  • Prosecution by the Attorney General under sections 1204 of title 17, United States Code, by reason of a violation of section 1201 of such title.

If a foreign Internet site is a “foreign infringing site,” the Attorney General (AG) can:

• Commence an action in personam against a registrant of a domain name used for the foreign infringing site OR an owner or operator of a foreign infringing site.
• Commence an action in rem against the foreign infringing site or the foreign domain used by such site if it cannot commence an action in personam.

On application of the AG, after commencement of either of the above actions, the court may issue a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, or an injunction against:

• A registrant of a domain name used by the foreign infringing site or an owner or operator of the foreign infringing site if the action is in personam; or
• The foreign infringing site or the domain name used by such site, to cease and desist from undertaking any further activity as a foreign infringing site if the action is in rem.

After an order is issued and served, the AG can require the following of:

• Internet search engines:
  • Definition: a service made available via the Internet whose primary function is gathering and reporting, in response to a user query, indexed information or Web sites available elsewhere on the Internet and does not include a service that retains a third party that is subject to service in the U.S. to gather, index or report information available elsewhere on the Internet.
  • Measures: Technically feasible and “commercially” reasonable, and taken as expeditiously as possible, rather than within 5 days.
  • Order: Applicable to search engines must be narrowly tailored to be consistent with the First Amendment as the least restrictive means of achieving the goals of this Title.
• Service Provider:
  • Measures: Least burdensome, technically feasible and reasonable to prevent resolving to the foreign infringing site domain name’s IP address, taken as expeditiously as possible, rather than within 5 days.
• Payment network providers/ Internet advertising services:
  • Measures: Technically feasible and “commercially” reasonable to halt payment processing, and taken as expeditiously as possible, rather than within 5 days

 

[free spirit]

IMO, this bill is likely to be particularly bad for UK based sites due to the terms of our ridiculous extradition treaty with the US that basically* means anyone in the UK can be extradited and prosecuted in the US under US law even if there is no equivalent UK law.

* as I understand it, but IANAL

 

[free spirit]

If I'm reading that right, then it's quite possible that a site like Urban would be able to successfully defend itself from charges under this law, but before this could happen the editor could have been extradited to the USA to face trial, and have had his paypal account suspended, and have had urban entirely wiped from all search engines before he had chance to defend himself in court.

 

[agricola]

So how might this effect urban? I guess if we post videos on here that infringe US copyright it would put urban in the firing line, is that it?

It would depend on where the videos were hosted, it seems - if a youtube video was embedded here it seems they would have to go after youtube.

The worrying thing would be the use of trademarks (names especially) in ways that would not be in the interests of the copyright holder - ie: protests, in criticism of the copyright holder and whatnot - obviously most of the time this would be fair use, but the way SOPA is written its unclear whether such arguments would be heard at the time of the court order being sought, or only after the court order had been granted, the website blocked (US users being denied service and the site being delisted on google etc) and was being "appealed" with all the legal costs that would incur. There is also a separate issue of what grounds the initial court will require to grant the court order - to use an example from Urban, that time the scientologists nicked the web design would (should that happen again) the initial court look deeply into who actually owns the copyright?

 

[agricola]

If I'm reading that right, then it's quite possible that a site like Urban would be able to successfully defend itself from charges under this law, but before this could happen the editor could have been extradited to the USA to face trial, and have had his paypal account suspended, and have had urban entirely wiped from all search engines before he had chance to defend himself in court.

He wouldnt have to be extradited, but if the Justice Department did get a court order blocking urban then the site (not him) would get blocked to US users, delisted off Google, blocked by PayPal etc, at least until he could get the court order lifted. The lawyers will make an absolute fortune out of this, which is probably why so many of the US Congress are behind it.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I think a key concern would be that the law seems to be framed as "shut down first, ask questions later" which among other things makes it ideal for harassment of sites on trumped up charges of copyright infringment, when the underlying motivation is some form of dissent or criticism that someone wants to see silenced.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

He wouldnt have to be extradited, but if the Justice Department did get a court order blocking urban then the site (not him) would get blocked to US users, delisted off Google, blocked by PayPal etc, at least until he could get the court order lifted. The lawyers will make an absolute fortune out of this, which is probably why so many of the US Congress are behind it.

It wouldn't just be US users. The way DNS works would mean it almost inenvitably spilled over to other countries. See e.g.

http://www.renesys.com/blog/2010/11/dns-when-governments-lie-1.shtml

That article talks about spillage from the 'Great Firewall of China' but they only have a few copies of a few of the root servers.

The US is the centre of the whole infrastructure, so the spillage would be far worse if they started fucking with DNS and trying to get it to return false results for some sites.

 

[free spirit]

He wouldnt have to be extradited, but if the Justice Department did get a court order blocking urban then the site (not him) would get blocked to US users, delisted off Google, blocked by PayPal etc, at least until he could get the court order lifted. The lawyers will make an absolute fortune out of this, which is probably why so many of the US Congress are behind it.

he may not have to be, but I'm fairly sure that under the current arrangements any UK citizens could be if the US chose to extradite them.

Happy to be corrected though if someone can show why our extradition arrangements with the US wouldn't apply here.

 

[Zabo]

 

[ruffneck23]

3rd time out for this vid , I cant take credit for it but its pretty good

 

[editor]

We'd need a lot more moderators if this bullshit law comes into being, and posters would be subjected to far more rules about what they can and can not post.

 

[ska invita]

3rd time out for this vid , I cant take credit for it but its pretty good

Apart from the bit where he says 'frikin' which drives me up the frigging rigging

 

[free spirit]

I reckon one of the major problems with this law for none profit sites such as Urban is that there's basically no deterrent for anyone seeking to use it against Urban because there would be barely any direct financial losses that Urban could claim from anyone shown to have been abusing the law to force Urban off the web.

It's basically a charter for big business to be able to remove entire sites from the web on a whim, based on just one or 2 copyright infringements, whereas at present they'd simply be able to issue a take down notice for the specific web page, and the website would have a reasonable period to comply before further action could be taken.

 

[Zabo]

I tend to think that LulzSec and Anonymus and 4chan and others will have one heck of a party if this becomes law.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Here's an article from just over a year ago, drawing some conclusions from the attempts to shut down Wikileaks but I think it might also have some relevance here.

From a more dispassionate infrastructure standpoint, though, we can make a few observations.

First, even without considering the possibility of alternatives to the current DNS infrastructure, it's evident that the country-level distribution of authority inherent in the ccTLD system has provided enough political cover to keep an extremely controversial site running. Everyone has laws that make certain kinds of content illegal, but there is no global agreement across jurisdictions about the definition of illegal content.

Second, it's apparent that search and social infrastructure (Google and Twitter) now play a key role in re-spawning content that gets blocked in any one place, and drawing even more attention to the surviving copies. If suppressed content automatically goes viral, the Internet's construction basically guarantees that that content will have a home for the rest of time. If you attack DNS support, people will tweet raw IP addresses. If you take down the BGP routes to web content, people will put up more mirrors, or switch to overlay networks to distribute the data. You can't burn down the Library of Alexandria any more— it will respawn in someone's basement in Stockholm, or Denver, or Beijing.

Finally, we can predict that in the future, enforcement of local laws will take place almost exclusively at the consumer edge of the Internet. Providers of content can change jurisdictions, but consumers generally cannot — and this asymmetry drives the creation of national domain blacklists and monitoring of access to illegal content within access networks. The day isn't far off, if it isn't here already, when your ISP will be set to work making lists of the naughty and nice. Get your proxies ready!

http://www.renesys.com/blog/2010/12/wikileaks-moving-target.shtml#more

 

[longdog]

I tend to think that LulzSec and Anonymus and 4chan and others will have one heck of a party if this becomes law.

Inclined to agree. This could be The Streisand Effect goes thermonuclear.

 

[hiccup]

I know Google have come out against this, but I'm surprised they haven't been more vocal. SOPA has the potential to make their search results less relevant to its users, and therefore more likely to use -gasp- another search engine.

The relevance of their results is their ultimate USP (ever tried Bing? Christ...) and I'm surprised they haven't shouted their objections much louder.

Although I'd assume there's some fairly intense lobbying going on behind the scenes.

 

[editor]

I reckon one of the major problems with this law for none profit sites such as Urban is that there's basically no deterrent for anyone seeking to use it against Urban because there would be barely any direct financial losses that Urban could claim from anyone shown to have been abusing the law to force Urban off the web.

It's like the UK libel laws. But worse.

 

[free spirit]

It's like the UK libel laws. But worse.

definitely worse for UK based sites as it would mean having to go to the US and hire US lawyers etc to defend yourself, which in itself would add massively to the hastle and costs involved.

That's without even considering the impact of the fairly draconian measures they seem to be saying they'll let the courts impose as interim measures before the case has even been properly heard. Forcing a site to remove a contentious web page as an interim measure would be one thing, but forcing the site to effectively go dark, not be listed on search engines, only be able to be accessed directly via it's IP address, and lose it's ability to raise funds via paypall etc before a final judgement has even been reached is ridiculous and massively open to abuse in a way that makes UK libel laws look almost sensible.