to think that SOPA will be the death of mumsnet and any site which ordinary people can post on?

[threefeethighandrising]

The SOPA blackout yesterday - it was about piracy on the internet, right? Well yes and no.

If SOPA passes, then it will be illegal not only to host illegal content (e.g. songs) but to link to them. And it's not just in the US - they want to censor everyone in the world.

So, that wedding video of yours where you're dancing to your favourite tune for example? If you post a link to your youtube video of it on mumsnet, not only will you be committing copyright infringement, so will youtube, and mumsnet too for linking to it.

You, youtube and mumsnet will be committing a crime under US law
Under these new laws they will have the power to effectively switch off mumsnet, extradite and jail or fine you, the owners of mumsnet and youtube.

(If you think this won't happen, see this [[http://www.chad.co.uk/news/local/alfreton/bolsover_mum_calls_on_government_to_step_in_after_son_loses_extradition_battle_to_united_states_1_4151073 23 year old student extradited to US and facing up to 10 years because he made a website - legal under UK law - which ^linked( to material which was infringing copyright

[[http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2007/10/riaa-jury-finds/ Single mother fined $222,000 for downloading 24 songs).

The US government will see mumsnet as coming under US law - as mumsnet has a .com address, it's american as far as they're concerned.

If the website breaking their law is outside of the US, then they will still have the power to effectively shut down the site - even if what the site is doing is legal its own country. The law also prohibits the website owners from suing - e.g. for having their business destroyed - even if found innocent! (There's loads of room for abuse for commercial gain by rival companies here).

If passed what this will mean in practice is that it's just too risky to run websites which have user-generated content.

Youtube, Flickr, Facebook, Twitter are obvious examples, and sites like mumsnet too.

It will destroy the internet as we know it.

Why are they doing it? The sponsors of the bill include many large media companies. They basically want to turn the internet into a media channel, where they can broadcast to us. There's a huge amount of money at stake here for them.

Oops let me try that middle bit again!

If you think this won't happen, see this 23 year old student extradited to US and facing up to 10 years because he made a website - legal under UK law - which linked to material which was infringing copyright

Single mother fined $222,000 for downloading 24 songs

Would you like to borrow my tin foil hat? I'm all done with it for now.

YANBU.

Here's a video which explains it much better than I can!

SiamoNellaMerda try watching the video I just linked to.

I don't think a tin foil hat would have done much for the 23 year old who's just been extradited to the states.

This isn't paranoia, this is real, unfortunately :(

'
If the website breaking their law is outside of the US, then they will still have the power to effectively shut down the site - even if what the site is doing is legal its own country.'

How does that work then? I don't understand!

Is this an example if the US once again trying to control the world ad a superpower? Or will it make US internet more like China's? If all the things you are saying are true, and I dint know enough about it to say if they are it not, but am interested to learn, then why aren't other countries governments getting on board blocking the bill? I always thought none could control the internet? I am very

YANBU- life without MN??? Unthinkable!

Seriously though it's scary US big brother stuff.

YANBU I was shocked that the UK courts are supporting the extradition of someone who has kept within the UK law in the UK - its so messed up. What can be done though? I feel like we are increasingly powerless against big business, governments arent there for the poor are they?

Its all about the money. It stinks. I'm am surprised its taken so long though.

Good question TunipTheVegemal. This is one of the really sneaky bits.

If someone accused a website of breaking this law (and they just have to convince one judge), then the court can rule that any websites "enabling" this site must stop doing so.

So google for example will be forced to stop linking to it, paypal to stop processing money etc.

The big one however, is that the DNS name servers are american. What they do is link your chosen website name e.g. "www.whatever.co.uk" to the actual IP address - mumsnet's is 85.92.212.70 for example.

Once the DNS link is broken that will effectively cause a website to disapear.

It'll still be there, sure, but no one will be able to find it.

This is specifically mentioned in the proposed wording of the act.

Excellent video explanation BTW threefeet thanks, I understand it better now!

So on the news, they said it could effectively black out the internet worldwide? So dies that mean going back to good old fashioned books and atlases and encyclopedias....oh wait, our libraries have been shut down...although unemployment will drop as we can have more openings for door to four encyclopedia salesmen!

Also, once that website has been taken down, there's no mechanism proposed to get it back up again quickly.

However the act does mention that as long as the person accusing the website thought it was infringing copyright, then the other site can't sue - even if they're found to be completely innocent.

It's really open for abuse, rival companies could use this as a tool to put their competitor out of business.

Sadly, YANBU at all.
It's scary stuff.
Someone likened it to shooting sparrows with canons.
I darkened my blog yesterday.

Sorry for typos!

The lad who was extrdited ran a site linking people to other sites which had illegal content - which doesn't break UK law, but the sites he linked to were protected by US copyright, some where US sitcoms iirc. and so he broke US law and because the site was obviously available in the US they requested his extradition to face charges there and the UK courts supported the US - I think he is appealing to the high court, and I guess Europe could overturn the decision??

One major effect is it'll make it really risky for websites around the world to have any kind of user-generated content (forums / comments / the ability to upload pictures or other files) as if a user links to something illegal on a then the website will be responsible.

Many would choose to just not take the risk I imagine.

I thought that a lot of the initial support for this in the US had dissipated?

Can other countries simply not cooperate with the US if it does go through over there? I know they have arranged things so that they can extradite anyone from here with a click of their fingers, but if our government simply refused to allow it, they could hardly manhandle Carrie or Justine onto a plane, could they?

Would everyone else in the world be able to bring lawsuits against the US - vexatious behaviour or something? We could use the power of the Internet to galvanize worldwide support........ Oh, er, they'd have switched it off.

The Guardian reported:

"the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency has faced criticism for perceived over-reach, targeting websites which, like TVShack ? which had servers in the Netherlands ? have no direct link to America.

In July the agency's assistant deputy director told the Guardian that ICE would now actively pursue websites similar to TVShack even if their only connection to the US was a website address ending in .com or .net. Such suffixes are routed through Verisign, an internet infrastructure company based in Virginia, which the agency believes is sufficient to seek a US prosecution."

SOPA's bad, but actually many people have DNS servers (the bit that converts the website name to a number) - although the top level servers are run by ICANN who are US. I for example use OpenDNS (although that's also american I think - and I have no idea how SOPA will be applied to DNS servers), most of you will be using DNS servers provided by your ISP.

Mumsnet's biggest problem is that as a .com the american government can seize their domain and switch off the site that way.

Other domains are run by their respective countries so cannot be so easily switched off.

Bloody hell I hear the sounds of media/business lawyers all over the world rubbing their hands in glees at the thought of the business this could generate for them

YANBU I was shocked that the UK courts are supporting the extradition of someone who has kept within the UK law in the UK

That's because Blair was a poodle doing whatever the US wanted. So we signed an extradition treaty designed for terrorists which was totally one sided.

So the US can demand the extradition of a UK citizen whom they suspect has broken THEIR laws without evidence. Yet we have to submit evidence to their courts to extradite a US citizen.

Like I said, the laws were implemented after 9/11 aimed at terrorists. Now forgive me but a young guy pirating some music and a guy with aspergers hacking a computer doesn't sound like a terrorist to me.

If SOPA goes through then it's a travesty. The sad thing is that the mainstream media is barely reporting this because it's not something most people will understand the impact of and also said media companies are the very ones demanding this law.

YANBU. Horrendous.

I didn't really pay any attention to this when I heard about it (briefly) on the news.. but DH works in IT and he explained it better. I don't know why the news report I saw didn't do a good job of explaining it - it's quite a simple concept. (Perhaps because the entertainment/media are the ones most in favour of it? [tin foil hat])

HOWEVER, after DH explained it...

I honestly cannot believe that they are proposing it - and the implications there are for people outside the US, e.g. the British boy that was linking to illegal stuff and is now facing a US courtroom.

This has huge implications for everyone, and it's a very very scary prospect that it might pass.

Imagine what posting on MN would be like if you accidently link to the wrong website or wrong file - or imagine being one of the innocent parties accused of flouting the bill's new rules.

This is a direct attack on democracy and freedom of speech indeed - sadly I think most non-techies like me are having the wool pulled over their eyes with mainstream news reporting on it though.