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.

ArtVandelay I am not a fan of Obama, but he has actually said he won't support the bill so even if it passes, he will veto it and they don't have the numbers to overrule a veto.

It looks really positive that it won't pass.

Another thing it does, which I don't think will effect us here (unless they mimic the US, which has been done before) is that all internet traffic will be monitored. You know, just in case.
So when your lady bits itch or you start developing lumps and bumps, and you google search symptoms, that will be recorded. If you are looking for information, and that search brings you to a site that pedals pirated goods (even if you have nothing to do with it and no interest in it whatsoever) then you get red flagged as someone to be watched. All the porn that is searched or sex toys you buy or what you tell your parents about your children in an email. All of it. Nothing is private.

niceguy, I've already said that I accept the UK--US extradition laws are borked. And I don't think SOPA's fine at all.

What I do think is that people are wildly exaggerating its possible effects, because politically there's no way sites like YouTube, Twitter, Facebook etc will allow it to happen. (In fact I see from today's coverage that the legislation in both houses is already in big trouble because of the strength of yesterday's protest.) I think it's an absolute political impossibility that a common-or-garden internet user will get prosecuted for posting a wedding video, or that YouTube would get shut down for hosting one. It's a nonsense.

And again (to those who're saying the student guy wasn't really at fault) - he deliberately enabled piracy. He didn't set that site up to link to 4OD or iPlayer, did he - what on earth would have been the point? He did it to signpost pirated material. And now he doesn't feel so big or clever about it

Surely this just makes it easier for the US government, and maybe even the UK government, to police what we say now as well? So, for example, on an anti war blog that lambasts the US government, or even some of the posts on here that are expressing horror at Gove and Cameron etc, someone in power only has to 'suspect' that there is copyright material being posted or enabled and facilitated and they can close it down.

And the website can't try to take it to court to prove that they are in the right because the law has it written in that theydon't have to prove themselves.

Russia, anyone? Where teachers could be arrested and made to disappear for not towing the party line? Your next door neighbour could disappear just because someone thought they didn't like the man in charge?

DISCLAIMER: may have got the complete wrong end of the stick AND/OR be edging towards the hysterical.

Why is there so much pornography going through their filters and they are doing diddly about it?

I think it is highly, highly unlikely that freedom of information will ever be shut down. Yes - I completely oppose this bill and it is typical of "Team America" to be arrogant enough to think they should have the right to try to impose this on the rest of the world.

But, and maybe I've just watched Jurassic Park too much, information will find a way. People will find a way. Information that is important enough will find a way out. I am a huge supporter of Wikileaks - they have potential to be more damaging than any sharing of a music file will ever, ever be and I honestly believe where there is the will and the technical knowledge, information will be available.

And it's worth bearing in mind that there is a WORLD of difference between freedom of information in a political, democratic, the-people-have-the-right-to-know sense, and access to an online encyclopedia.

We've always had to buy dictionaries, encyclopedias, newspapers, magazines, pay for a licence to watch the news etc - I'm pretty nonplussed about having to pay a small fee to access that info in a a digital context. There is absolutely no reason why schools can't begin subscribing to wikipedia (if they end up having to charge to "legalise" their content) in lieu of buying hard copy books/dictionaries/encyclopedias.

What scares me is governments trying to prevent information that wider societies has the right to know about. I fell in love with Twitter all over again around the time of the Egyptian riots, where pro-democracy tech-savvy users were using Twitter to get images and information out of a country where there was intense media censorship. This is so much more important than worrying about paying for information I would have paid for in a book shop pre internet days.

But I also have faith that are enough people around the globe who are passionate about freedom of information/hate censorship and have enough technical knowledge and desire to enable that information to go viral. Governments will never be able to repress that particular human spirit - the technology will either increase and increase, always stepping ahead of the technical knowledge of governments or we will go right back to the days of these particularly brave people: www.holocaustresearchproject.org/revolt/whiterose.html

Either way, you can't stop it.

The man being extradited to the US is being used as a test case.

His site TVShack enabled other people to post links to tv shows, moves and music. The content itself was not on TVShack just the links.

He has broken no UK law. He has been sold down the river to curry favour with the US.

"The bill specifically targets websites dedicated to illegal or infringing activity. Sites that host user content?like YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter?have nothing to be concerned about under this legislation"

Lot of hysteria by the sounds of it.

Piracy is a huge problem which does need addressing. Worldwide.

Yes...I guess we know Youtube, Twitter etc won't be taken offline. They're rich enough to be able to hire lawyers to defend them.

But what about sites like Mumsnet? Or your personal blog? Is Justine going to be able to defend MN in a US court? Especially when there's no income coming in because she's been knocked off Google, Bing and Paypal are refusing to take payments towards any legal defence fund?

Exaggerating? The point is that laws should be very specific. They cannot be so wide ranging and broad. Nor can they almost presume guilt until proven otherwise. Those are bad laws and this is what SOPA is.

Remember RIPA? A UK law designed to monitor terrorists? What did we use it for? To spy on people for the heinous crime of trying to get their child into a school not in their catchment area.

I have looked perfectly deep thank - deeper than a few posts back on MN anyway if that is as far as your research takes you.

Why is there so much pornography going through their filters and they are doing diddly about it?

A LARGE number of the people who are sponsoring and pushing the bill in the government received huge amounts of money by lobbyists for "campaign contributions."
The simple answer to your question is that because no one who wants to stop illegal pornography is lining the pockets of the politicians.

frownieface - "The man being extradited to the US is being used as a test case."

I absolutely think that is what is happening. Note this is a UK citizen so there is not going to be the same backlash as if they had arrested a US citizen for doing the same thing. This is in my mind a trial run or at least a warning shot to make sure that everyone out there knows the US can do this to people - no matter where you are and no matter whether you broke a law in your own country.

It just so happens that the UK has one of the most US friendly extradition treaties so this is the best place to try it first. I doubt they would have got very far in France for example.

Zeitgeist looks more like a factual account each day with all this government criminality taking place.

ThisIsANickname absolutely spot on.

YouCanDoTheCube, you think it... well, just wouldn't happen?

Stranger things than shutting down a popular video website, or social networking website - even just for a few days - have, and do happen.

It's naive to think that just because it sounds surreal, that it wouldn't happen.

I remember just a few years ago at the Athens Olympics people saw Europe as a stable, functioning unit... that was in 2004. Who'd have thought that only a handful of years later the fire bombs being thrown at Greek police officers and widescale protests whilst newspapers talk about the collapse of the Euro?

Also off the top of my head, I remember reading an internet discussion a few weeks ago wherein people were talking about ordinary folks' lack of power when it comes to badly performing banks (banks who made a mistake on a transaction, give poor advice which is in a grey area legally, not informing people of their rights, and so on). Therein followed some chat about the incident a few years ago where an irate customer took on a bank in court, bank was found at fault, due to admin error failed to fulfil duties, customer then managed to get court papers served on the bank at the BoE, and action was taken to start freezing that bank's assets in the UK - about 1 nanosecond after this started happening, the bank coughed up the paperwork and compensation that the "powerless" customer should have already been given. Not likely to happen, maybe - but possible. For the record, I couldn't remember the name of the bank, but I'd love to find it if anyone knows which banking institution it was.

Sooo... shutting down YouTube or Facebook is small fry when it comes to things that could happen. Far more surprising things occur.

Oh well niceguy2, I was quite happy about councils spying on people who lie to get their kids into schools

Exaggerating? Yes, I think so.

1. Politically impossible
2. First Amendment

Not going to happen.

Partly because, of course, Google, Facebook etc are now massive corporations in their own right (playing very fast and loose with people's privacy and data in the process) and have more political and lobbying power than the 'creative' industries these days.

Actually the Communications Decency Act is a very apposite comparator here (and is relevant to the pornography point too).

Yes...I guess we know Youtube, Twitter etc won't be taken offline. They're rich enough to be able to hire lawyers to defend them.

NiceGuy2 - thing is though, there is something written in to the law that makes it impossible for people to sue/take them to court because it is worded as such that the government(?) only have to suspect and not have proof, just reasonably believe that there is an infringement. That technically means that it doesn't matter how much money YouTube, Twitter etc have to pay lawyers, the law has been written in such a way that they couldn't make a case.

Or at least that's how I understood it...

Cube? Seriously?

So let's say it was you. You applied for your child to get into your preferred school. You've not lied, it's all fine as far as you are concerned. But for whatever reason the council thought you were lying and followed you around for a few days? You'd be happy about that would you?

What about photographs? There's many cases where police have threatened photographers with anti-terror laws when they've done nothing but take photos in innocent places. Still happy?

My point is that our freedoms are hard won and shouldn't be given up wholesale just because we trust they'll do the right thing. Because history clearly shows they won't.

My point is that our freedoms are hard won and shouldn't be given up wholesale just because we trust they'll do the right thing. Because history clearly shows they won't.

This.

My problems with the extradition of the 23 year old are many.

Firstly he did not break any laws in his own country.

Also all he did was link to the material. He did not host it or embed it. Linking to something is more akin to talking about something or pointing to it. It's not the same as handling stolen goods at all IMO.
There is a point of principle here. If you can be held responsible for what you link to (or what users of your site link to) then many sites will be very nervous indeed.

Don't forget that what they are proposing gives individuals or companies the power to get other websites "turned off" via the courts. Of course the US government won't go after Youtube or Mumsnet, but others might. Remember Gina Ford anyone? If she'd found links to illegal material on mumset (of which there are many - check out the late night threads where people link to music on youtube for example) she could have used this to shut the site down, if she'd chosen to (hypothetically speaking of course). These laws would give people and companies the power to do this.

And yes, I have a problem with the US extraditing someone for this kind of charge, and subjecting them to their IMO barbaric "justice" system. Particularly when it's hardly the crime of the century, is it?

YouCanDoTheCube I am sorry but just throwing the word "First Amendment" at the problem does not mean it won't happen.

The US constitution also says that all people are equal under the eyes of the law (14th Amendment ) yet most states won't recognise gay marriage legally. Does that sound like equality?
The US constitution also says that people have the right against illegal search and seizure (4th Amendmnet) which means that law enforcement must have probably cause that a crime has been committed or a warrant, and yet laws in Arizona have recently been passed that allow law enforcement to stop and search anyone they think could be an illegal immigrant (which is anyone who isn't white, basically).

Unconstitutional laws get passed all the time. It is only when they are challenged in the courts that they either get established as unconsitutional.

I actually would be fine with that, NG. I understand that it contravenes Article 8 and so on a point of law it's not OK, but it doesn't make me cough up my liver with outrage or anything.

The photographers point is something else; I never could understand why photographers were being targeted.

And they won't need to actually shut many sites to change the nature of the internet. Once there are a few high profile cases where they lock people up for stuff that their users have linked to on their sites, then other website owners will become very nervous indeed and many will stop offering the opportunity to post to their sites.

The opportunity to join in a discussion on the web could become much less common.

Nickname - but we're back to politics. US citizens don't 'feel' gay marriage or the rights of illegal immigrants in their bones. But First Amendment issues are something else entirely; it's a defining political point in the US, and it's one area where the Supreme Court strikes down legislation again and again.

All articles of the constitution were not created equal, let's say.

Yes, it does strike down legislation time and again. But it is only given the opportunity once the legislation has been passed. That was my point.

If this passes, and no one was to challenge it then the supreme court would never get a chance to strike at it. That's why gay marriage isn't something that has been defined; no one has brought it before the federal supreme court yet.

If this legislation passes, it can do a lot of damage in the YEARS it will take for the case to be brought before the supreme court.