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.

the video linked to on page 1 of this thread is a great explanation of why the bill is so worrying.

He was not doing the equivalent of handling stolen goods cube. A more accurate anology would be that he is the guy who made the coathanger that was used to break into a car, or the glass cutter that was used in the burglary of a house. He just gave people the tools to commit illegal acts. The website he produced was legal in the place where it was made.

I never thought I'd say this but George W is starting to look like a pretty good president! Its only January and Obama has already managed to destroy the bill of rights and is now trying to shut off the internet

Ok, in simple speak.

SOPA gives companies the right to have sites it doesn't like to be blocked on the Internet. It doesn't even need any evidence. Just to say it thinks they're infringing their copyright.

So say someone posts a link to a dodgy album on Mumsnet. Or a wedding video running music they haven't paid for. In theory Mumsnet could be chucked off the Internet.

Scared yet?

Does this affect only .com and .net domains? MN couldswitch to .co.uk?

No, that's the point.

Make a backup I can suggest a new name.

MUMSNET2.

Copy the website in it's entirety and port it over to the new dormant site and unleash the beast as and if it ever happens.

I'm sure the boffins art MNHQ could do that?

Ok, so I watched the video.

So, basically, what it is saying is this:

Say I go to a concert and video a performance on my phone without asking permission then upload it to YouTube. The performer sees it and takes offence, the whole of YouTube is taken down, right?

Perhaps I have gone one step further, started a thread on Mumsnet saying "I want to so and so festival, look wasn't she great?" and then linked to the video - Mumsnet is also in trouble and taken down.

They take Mumsnet and YouTube down in a way that means no one searching for it can find it - meaning that people that advertise on these sites, like Boden and whatever, they lose money too? Or potential money at least.

Psammead, no - the internet has always been US-focused (for technical reasons, many of the server stuff running the web is based there apparently), switching to a co.uk website wouldn't make any difference apparently. It doesn't matter in technical terms what the website name says, it all works the same way. And US law reaching out into other territories like the UK based on this would make it a useless fix anyway unfortunately, even if technically it would make UK citizens safe. US law trumps it all.

I don't think that is a fair analogy, eurochick. He was very deliberately setting up a FTP (?) site whose sole purpose was to traffick stolen goods. A better analogy would be an accountant setting up a fraudulent tax-evasion scheme - something which deserves a prison sentence too in my book.

I think I agree with foglike's point: nothing's going to control the several billion plus people who're connected online. I seem to remember people getting into a massive lather about the DEAct a couple of years ago, but the last time I checked UK internet sites were alive and kicking, and millions of users were breaking injunctions with impunity.

All this aside, there's the small matter of the First Amendment. I have some dealings with big Silicon Valley companies and I think it will be a cold day in hell before they allow the US government to close down online freedom of expression; they'll employ all their financial, legal and cultural clout to prevent it.

No internet no computer sales advertising revenue down massively big renewal of newspapers in paper form.

Information helps big business and big business knows that.

More importantly it helps civil rights movements (Organisations who walk through walls to make a difference even if we don't agree with every one of them).

What are we doing wrong?

We're not supporting individuals who fall foul of this nonsense enough.

YANBU

But good luck to the yanks if they think they can arrest the entire planet.

A better analogy would be an accountant setting up a fraudulent tax-evasion scheme - something which deserves a prison sentence too in my book.

No.

A better analogy would be that he created a list of the area's tax accountants, some of whom are commonly known to not be adverse to preparing tax forms in an illegal manner. But some of whom are perfectly legitimate tax advisors.

What he did was not illegal, not in the UK. What you're talking about would be illegal in the UK and the US - an entirely different thing.

Another point.

Do we really think a US website will be shut down on the say so a of a UK company claiming it is having its copyright breached. I very much doubt it.

The "innocent" "young" "student" was raking in £15k A MONTH!!!!

Cube, I think you are being very very naive.

The UK guy has done nothing wrong under UK law. We may not like what he's done but he's done nothing wrong.

But now the US has come along and suspects he has. He's now going to be extradited under a law designed for terrorism which doesn't require the US to even submit evidence. And what is the heinous crime??? Has he killed someone? Has he raped, pillaged? No. He's run a site which is accused of having dodgy links which someone can use to watch TV/films.

And now you try to imply that SOPA's fine because companies would never abuse the law and use it for a purpose that it wasn't designed for.

Let me give you another analogy.

Let's say someone comes up to you and says "Mate, where can I buy some drugs?" And you say "Down the street, 2nd house on the left".

Does that:

a) Make you a drug dealer?
b) Allow the US to extradite you?

squeakytoy, you're avoiding the legalities here.

What he did was not illegal in the UK.

Hell, there are serious civil liberty issues around the legality of prosecuting him in the USA.

Would you suggest my list-bearing tax person (described above) is prosecuted for selling his list of accountants (some crooked, some legit, some inbetween) for £15k a month?

This petition only has 3 signatures are we asleep or even worse assimilated?

epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/27404

Too many people on facebook to realise what's going on in the rest on the net

Or even, someone knocks on your door during a party and asks where he can buy drugs, and one of your guests says the down the road thing and then your house gets knocked down.

I think.

I am still unsure on the issue of where US jurisdiction lies on the interent. Can't we invent a whole new domain which has nothing to do with the US and put all our sites on it?

"sleepyinseattle Thu 19-Jan-12 10:19:45
MoreBeta, I'm often reminded at times like these of the historical issues around freedom of information e.g. the 15th century decree making it illegal to read or distribute the Bible in English without permission of a member of the Church, lest the "common folk" get too educated for their own good.

This is a modern day equivalent.

Gives the proles too much power"

This ^ deserves repeating again.

Also, the following:

"MoreBeta Thu 19-Jan-12 10:26:50 Another example of this was the arrest of key personnel (as they passed through US territory) and severe curtailment of the business of UK internet gambling sites on the grounds that they were allowing US citizens to play poker online. The funny thing is that the US having disabled the rapidly growing UK internet gambling industry is now talking about making it legal to run these sites in the US. Sounds like US commercial interests were being given an advantage. As far ss far as I know, these UK sites were not breaking UK law but the UK Govt didn't say a word about these people being arrested."

YANBU, This is truly scary shit.

In a nut shell if i said ooohhh take a look at this puppy dancing to ABBA, and put a link up I would be breaching copyright laws because the ABBA song is copyrighted, Mumsnet would get in trouble because they have enabled me to share the content, Youtube would also be in trouble for hosting the content and Google would be in trouble for allowing people to search for puppy dancing to ABBA.

Under these proposed laws, the potential is there for Google, Youtube, Wikipedia, even Mumsnet so be shut down. And the truly, truly, truly scary thing is that the American government only needs to think that a site is breaking the law for it to be shut down.

Thankfully it looks as though the bill is loosing support www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16623831.

Makes you wonder if the co sponsors got a pay-off for backing down?

I'm being too cynical.

Can I be indicted for suggesting that?

The 23 year old has basically stolen and helped other people to steal from US citizens and companies yes? The fact that modern technology enables him to do that from the UK does not mean that he should not be held accountable in the US for his crimes against US citizens and US corporations.

And as for all the unfair extradition treaty comments - my understanding is that the US has filed about 120 requests for extradition with the UK courts under this treaty, 7 of which have been turned down. Under the same treaty, the UK has filed over 50 request with the US courts none of which have been turned down. Not that one sided then.

I have concerns about this issue but think some of the reactions are a bit hysterical.

The 23 year old has basically stolen and helped other people to steal from US citizens and companies yes?

No.

You need to read back a few posts, or look deeper into what he actually did.