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.

Cube, all I can say is that you are incredibly trusting of the authorities. Usually I find myself the one on forums like MN trying to defend the govt against ppl complaining about whatever law/benefit/whatever they dislike.

But in this case I think you clearly are in the minority who think passing a law which gives companies practically carte blanche to block sites which they THINK is against US law is acceptable.

Most of us think that's unfair.

Is Obama a tally opposed to it, as they say? How likely is he to veto, do you think?

(using one of the links her, I found my way onto a Ron Paul video. He thinks the US should mind it's own bloody business over a lot of o/s stuff. Couldn't agree more. Stop trying to police the world, please.)

This law is akin to being arrested and put on trial without any evidence and only on the basis that someone told the police that you had told them where to buy stolen goods.

I think Obama will veto it. He'd be an idiot not to.

Google and a lot of other internet companies bring so much to the American economy and if they pass this law they will simply remove themselves from American jurisdiction in order to circumvent the law.

It will also completely stiffle innovation and investment in that area which would send America to the back of the line in terms of technology and advancement.

Jux, Obama hasn't explicitly said he will but the statement he put out the other day seemed to say that the act in it's current form isn't good (alluding to the fact he may veto it).

Oh and Cube, whatever happened to the principles that people are innocent until proven guilty? Or that it's better to let ten guilty men go free than convict an innocent person?

The photography thing was designed for police to be able to stop people taking photos in sensitive places.....for example Sellafield. Not on a sunny day in London when a copper is beating a protestor up.

Extradition for a crime that isn't a crime in your country is somewhat questionable, especially if the supposed crime was committed in the country where it wasn't a crime.
It's akin to Saudi Arabia extraditing someone from the UK for drinking alcohol. Sounds preposterous, doesn't it? So does SOPA.

" Can't we invent a whole new domain which has nothing to do with the US and put all our sites on it?"

There are some hackers trying to do just that German Hackers Are Building a DIY Space Program to Put Their Own Uncensored Internet into Space

But I suspect it'll take a while to catch on! And if it does no doubt the Americans will pronounce it a supporter of terrorist organisations (or some such excuse) and blow it out of the sky.

niceguy, to reiterate, I don't think SOPA is OK. I really don't.

I only got involved with this because the OP said:

'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.'

My point all along has been: no, these things incredibly unlikely to happen. Not because the legislation is OK or well-drafted; it's plainly not. But because of politics (US senators' and congressmembers' accountability to their voters) and because of the US Constitution, and because of the huge power of Silicon Valley companies.

I just think this kind of exaggeration is unhelpful, I suppose. And, again, i think back to the DEAct protests and how that didn't end the internet as we know it, although we were earnestly assured that it would.

Sooner or later the tech lobby is going to find that people stop listening, because they've realised that its claims are usually over-egged.

Unlikely I agree with you. But then why run the risk at all? Why give companies the power to do this?

Why pass this as a law in the current form?

I understand this a bit better now, thanks.

Listened to lots of debate on this on US TV yesterday and one of the internet service providers there (ie a firm that provides broadband to peoples homes and businesses) was saying that the law effectively would make them the policemen of the internet. He was saying that an ISP that delivered the content to your house might even be caught by this law.

He said that effectively the way the law is currently drafted the ISPs would be forced to monitor every download to try and ensure that no one was using their server to access pirated material and if they found people doing it then they would be duty bound to block their internet access to that site.

In summary he said it is in reality it s such a draconian law that it would be an unworkable in practice without severe and intrusive and highly costly monitoring of all internet traffic by ISPs.

In part this is also a fight between ISPs and content providers as to who gets the spoils of the internet age. ISPs want to host huge amounts of free content and sell ad revenue while content providersd want to extract huge fees for providing content.

I don't think it should be passed (and I don't think it will).

I just get picky about the details, I suppose.

YouCanDoTheCube you are nit picking.

Yes it's unlikely that mumsnet would be shut down for someone linking to a wedding video.

But this law would give individuals and companies the power to do so if they choose, and it's important that people undertand that.

If it's allowed to become law, then I strongly suspect websites would be closed down for reasons as tenuous as this - not because anyone has a problem with a the wedding video (or whatever) per se, but because it suits someone to use this for some other reason.

The first one that springs is mind is business competition. Want to wipe out the competition? Find an illegal link on their site and bingo! It'll be wiped out.
It will be justified by people saying "well they shouldn't have allowed illegal links on their site".

What websites will do to prevent the risk of being put in this position is simply stop allowing users to comment / link to stuff. Problem solved! Well for them at least.

For us, well the website could eventually become a place where the emphasis is on consuming "official" media rather than a place where we can actively engage with each other and share open discussions.

You cannot direct people to places where they can steal or break the law in real life so why make an exception for stealing online. Mumsnet could not advertise a place where you can buy stolen bikes, so why shoudl they eb able to advertise where you can buy stolen films.

Cube, the truth is though, that if the US wanted to do those things it could. Agree, it is unlikely it would bother with extradition over a wedding video posted on MN, but it would be possible if under some convoluted set of circumstances, it suited their purposes to do so. It should not be legally possible.

You can bet that they will wind up using the Act for things it was never openly intended for.

Individual responsibility, Kelly. Something which is in ever shorter supply.

Well, you can call it nit-picking

Or you can call it 'being accurate'

Tech hysteria annoys me. Arguing on the basis of likely outcomes is fine, but arguing on the basis of wild exaggerations is irritating. And I think the tech lobby gets away with a hell of lot because so many people are completely blinded by the science.

Almost everything people are saying about this act was said about the Digital Economy Act. It's been in force for over a year. Anybody notice the difference? Cos I can't say I have. And the ISPs, who were squealing about it, seem to have found a way to live with it.

Which is not to say that SOPA is OK. I'm sure it's not and I hope it doesn't get passed. But please, stop pretending that my one-legged granny will get thrown in jail for uploading a video to YouTube.

It's the law of unintended consequences isnt it?

Years ago we didn't think passing RIPA would result in mums being spied on for school places. Nor did we think police would use anti terror laws to threaten people taking photos the police disliked.

It's better to draft a good law which is properly targetted and proportionate to the 'crime' than a law which is so wide you can drive a bus through it then just hope people use it wisely.

jux,
so you think it would be OK for mumsnet or your local shop to post advertisements for things they knew were stolen, and which the advertisement is saying are stolen? It just seems sad that everyone is hysterical because they might not be able to break the law online, and cannot see what use the internt is if it does not make it easy for you to break the law. Stealing a film that someone has poured millons into making is no different from stealing the DVD from a shop. You canbnot direct peopel to easy shops to breka in, nor can you direct them to where they can steal them online.

Jux, niceguy - completely agree with points about well-drafted legislation/lack of.

I bet that China are laughing with Joy and planning a party to honour the USA as we speak

Kelly, there is such a thing as "net neutrality" that is something that Google is famous for. It will find you what you are searching for, not what it thinks you are or should be searching for. So if you are looking for pirated DVDs it will find you what you asked for. Not because it thinks you are right or wrong, but because it is neutral and YOU are at fault for looking for stolen goods. You should be the one taken to task; it is not Google's job to police you (nor should it be).

That is what I think was meant by talking about individual responsibility.

I post a goodnight song to my late DD on FB most evenings. (via a link to youtube)

Will I not be able to do this anymore

What will happen to youtube?