Sopa - The discussion

SeventhSon

AdrianRaine

It sucks for them and they will fight it as much as they can, but they are not entitled to the level of profits they're used to getting. 

Um, this is the U.S.A. and everyone IS entitled to as much profit as they can make.  Go to Ballmer and tell him that Microsoft is taking too much in profits and that Microsoft isn't entitled to the billions it makes selling software.  I hope you just worded that statement incorrectly meaning to say they aren't *earning* the profits they used to.    

I meant they're not inherently entitled to maintaining their profits if the market happens to be going in a different direction. Everyone is entitled to whatever money they're making, but that's up to the whims of the market. The point is if it turns out they're going in a different direction, there's no reason special concessions should be made just so they can maintain the level of profits they're used to.

Stadler


Absolutely not correct.  I mean, you can have that opinion, but it is not reflected in the law.  Whistleblower statutes are but one example where private actors can and do act on reasonable belief and in certain instances get immunity for doing so. See, I don't necessarily think this is perfect (in fact I don't like it at all, since I don't care for immunity clauses) but if you are going to have it, this isn't all that out of whack.  I can always sue to show there was no reasonable belief.  

 
I'm sorry, but I don't think this applies at all to what we're discussing. Look at it this way.
 
A whistleblower receives immunity regarding his/her activities because he's aiding law enforcement in looking out for the interests of the people. For law enforcement to act on that information there needs to be probable cause and, any arrests, would go through due process.
 
TimeWarner receives immunity about disrupting a business's operations because it's aiding TimeWarner in looking out for TimeWarner's interests. TimeWarner is already acting simply by disrupting said business's operations and law enforcement isn't involved in any step of the process.
 
And section 104 seems to stop anyone from suing TimeWarner because what they considered reasonable belief wasn't actually reasonable.
 
That's just following the text of the law. If that's not what the law is supposed to allow, then the law shouldn't be written the way it is written. As it is, though, it does allow for that scenario.

Case law is absolutely a part of this, because they will always have to show "reasonable belief".  They can't make shit up.  It may be a conflict of interest, I grant you that, but then again, isn't this really just a whistleblower statute?  Aren't they a conflict of interest as well?

 
To whom are they demonstrating this reasonable belief? Section 104 is pretty clear that this is an action initiated by a private party based on its own judgement. It would be different if it were about an ISP notifying law enforcement about a site it believes is infringing, but that's not what the law says.

Yeah, I'd hate to have something really restrictive and one-sided forced upon me.  You know, like those software agreements that you have to click to accept if you want to use the product you bought?

 
Completely off-topic. Believe me, I'm not a fan of most EULAs in software AT ALL.

We will, because that's not really what happened.  "Blocking a website" proactively to show the evils of the bill - even if those evils are wildly speculative and not actually likely to happen - isn't "taking it to the people".  Framing this as a dire attack on free speech and due process - when those possibilities are not likely and are a worst case scenario isn't "taking it to the people".  Wikipedia isn't going to get blocked.  I don't see one scenario - short of someone operating outside of the bounds of the law, and therefore not protected by the immunity clause - where Wikipedia gets shut down.  NOT ONE.

 
It was still up to the people to decide whether to support Google's or Wikipedia's position. I also feel you're diminishing the fact that people agreed with this and instead painting them as simply following what Google or Wikipedia said in order to bolster your argument. I had made my mind up on this long before the blackout and I know plenty of people who did the same as well.

No, I don't; I've already said that.  I've sort of evolved on my position on this.  I still like the idea of the law, not the execution.  It is sloppier than it needs to be, but not fatally sloppy.  Not dire, "free speech and due process is being pissed on, the internet is going to crumble" fatal.  But I've really soured on the tech companies, because I feel they sold a bill of goods to trusting, caring people that mean well, but.... much like a recent president (very recent) in a recent election (very recent).  So how does that make them better than the content owners?

 
Well, the tech companies didn't just try to out-lobby the content industry, I kinda appreciated it. I also appreciate that they haven't really been pushing for one-sided laws and tried to keep everyone out of it. That's a plus on my book, but again, somewhat unrelated to the core of this discussion.
 
Now, I agree that the Internet isn't going to crumble, but I still think that work on these bills needs to start again from scratch, this time involving all the appropriate parties.

Well, we might be playing fast and loose with the definition of "tech companies".  I don't know that Microsoft has ever actually said this, but there are plenty of blogs out there.  have you ever heard of "sdx-developers"?  Have you ever heard of the "electronic frontier foundation"?   I'm not making up or extrapolating any of the comments I have made in this regard, and many of the quotes are actual.

 
There's a huge difference between a blog or a group of programmers and the tech industry. There are plenty of people into tech who think all software should be open-source and free, but I don't think anyone would call them the tech industry.
 
There are plenty of people who would like to see IP law completely abolished, but they are not the tech industry. Let's not mix them together.

I can't say I disagree; I just wonder why it is an issue all of a sudden now.  If that's how you feel, by all means, do not limit yourself to tech issues.  I have the perfect example, and can't give it except in the abstract.  Suffice to say, there is a popular perception that banning a certain device would reduce deaths caused by that device, and crimes caused while using that device.  Except in almost every jurisdiction where the device was banned (and by the way, I say "almost" out of fairness; every jurisdiction that I personally know of this has happened) deaths and associated crime has gone up.  And yet you still have people arguing for it. 

 
It's not an issue all of a sudden for me, this just happens to be what this thread is discussing.

Everything else I'm not responding to is because, regarding the forum's rules, I think we just completely crossed that line we've been tip-toeing around.

AdrianRaine


I'm sorry, but I don't think this applies at all to what we're discussing. Look at it this way.

A whistleblower receives immunity regarding his/her activities because he's aiding law enforcement in looking out for the interests of the people. For law enforcement to act on that information there needs to be probable cause and, any arrests, would go through due process.

TimeWarner receives immunity about disrupting a business's operations because it's aiding TimeWarner in looking out for TimeWarner's interests. TimeWarner is already acting simply by disrupting said business's operations and law enforcement isn't involved in any step of the process.

 
No.  Flat out, no.  You may choose to rationalize it this way, but under the law, there is no difference.  Seriously; I'm not disrespecting your opinion, or any of that nonsense that went on here before.  I am telling you that, unequivocally, and as a matter of law, there is no difference. You can question the rationale of that all you want, but this is settled law.  You've just parsed the words in a way that supports your opinoin.  In both cases, an actor has a reasonable belief that a crime is being committed, and acts to stop that crime in accordance with the law giving them the authority to do so.  In doing so, they gain immunity.  To my knowledge, in neither case is there a requirement that the actor be "free from any interest" in the outcome.  Whistleblowers often end up profiting from their actions; that's actually seen by some as a good thing, since it incentivizes them to do what is at the heart of both these laws: STOP AN UNDERLYING CRIME.  I'm sorry, but you are WAAAYYYYYYY too hung up on your personal feelings of whatever for the content owners.  Why is it so hard to understand that the law you find so frustrating because it goes against your emotional reaction is INTENDED TO DO THAT.  We're fundamentally at odds here, and I don't know how better to explain it. 
 

And section 104 seems to stop anyone from suing TimeWarner because what they considered reasonable belief wasn't actually reasonable.
 
That's just following the text of the law. If that's not what the law is supposed to allow, then the law shouldn't be written the way it is written. As it is, though, it does allow for that scenario.

 
That is also, in my opinion (but subject to opinion,  I will grant you) not accurate.  The immunity kicks in when the actor acts with reasonable belief.  If you can show that there was NOT a reasonable belief, then there is no immunity.  The text of the law as written does not prevent that suit. And before you say it again, "reasonable belief" is not the crazy, undefined, who-the-hell-knows-WHAT-that-means standard.  There is plenty of case law from which to make a fair determination what is reasonable and what is not.
Your interpretation is one of my big beefs with the tech side; they let this misconception go, because it helped them. 

To whom are they demonstrating this reasonable belief? Section 104 is pretty clear that this is an action initiated by a private party based on its own judgement. It would be different if it were about an ISP notifying law enforcement about a site it believes is infringing, but that's not what the law says.

 
See above; a court of competent jurisdiction.  The immunity is only present if the actor acts with reasonable belief.  You still have to be able to show that.  It's simple cause and effect.  You do "this", you get "that".  You don't do "this", you don't get "that".
 

Completely off-topic. Believe me, I'm not a fan of most EULAs in software AT ALL.

 
Yeah it was; it was lame humor too.  Sorry.

 
It was still up to the people to decide whether to support Google's or Wikipedia's position. I also feel you're diminishing the fact that people agreed with this and instead painting them as simply following what Google or Wikipedia said in order to bolster your argument. I had made my mind up on this long before the blackout and I know plenty of people who did the same as well.

 
I'm diminishing this because what they agreed with wasn't reality.  And to make matters worse, many people who had access to websites and blogs and twitters and whatnot promulgated false and misleading information to keep the ball rolling.  Why doesn't that bother anyone but me?  If this was WMDs or healthcare, we'd be having a conniption.  Oh wait....
 

 
Now, I agree that the Internet isn't going to crumble, but I still think that work on these bills needs to start again from scratch, this time involving all the appropriate parties.

 
No argument from me at all.  But I still don't ever like the idea of "picking and choosing" what scumbag behavior I can tolerate based on my position on the issues.  That just leads to more bad laws, and more crumbling of the trust we have to have in our representatives for a republic to work. 

There's a huge difference between a blog or a group of programmers and the tech industry. There are plenty of people into tech who think all software should be open-source and free, but I don't think anyone would call them the tech industry.

There are plenty of people who would like to see IP law completely abolished, but they are not the tech industry. Let's not mix them together.

 
Why not?  Most people aren't IN the tech industry and therefore don't know the difference.  We didn't really care about "clarity" when we mixed in "free speech" and "due process" into the discussions when they really didn't belong there (or if they did, were a footnote).  You'd be hard pressed to explain to me how software and solution developers are not "the tech industry".  What are they then?  And even if they technically aren't (see what I did there?) they were the tools the tech industry used.  Their "lobbyists of the populace" if you will. 

Everything else I'm not responding to is because, regarding the forum's rules, I think we just completely crossed that line we've been tip-toeing around.

Fair point.  But this stuff does not and should not exist in a vacuum.  We've (generally, not you and me) clouded this with all kinds of terms and concepts with their own baggage, but at the end of the day, this is a bill intended to fight crime.  And that is how it should be judged; no better, no worse.

Stadler

No.  Flat out, no.  You may choose to rationalize it this way, but under the law, there is no difference.  Seriously; I'm not disrespecting your opinion, or any of that nonsense that went on here before.  I am telling you that, unequivocally, and as a matter of law, there is no difference. You can question the rationale of that all you want, but this is settled law.  You've just parsed the words in a way that supports your opinoin.  In both cases, an actor has a reasonable belief that a crime is being committed, and acts to stop that crime in accordance with the law giving them the authority to do so.  In doing so, they gain immunity.  To my knowledge, in neither case is there a requirement that the actor be "free from any interest" in the outcome.  Whistleblowers often end up profiting from their actions; that's actually seen by some as a good thing, since it incentivizes them to do what is at the heart of both these laws: STOP AN UNDERLYING CRIME.  I'm sorry, but you are WAAAYYYYYYY too hung up on your personal feelings of whatever for the content owners.  Why is it so hard to understand that the law you find so frustrating because it goes against your emotional reaction is INTENDED TO DO THAT.  We're fundamentally at odds here, and I don't know how better to explain it. 

 
A whistleblower relays information. A whistleblower doesn't take direct action against the criminal party, which is what we're discussing here. A whistleblower doesn't get immunity for shooting a bad guy because he acted under the reasonable belief that he was doing something illegal. He relays information to law enforcement, which can then act on that information according to established law.
 
They are not the same thing. If there is protection for a whistleblower going all vigilante, well, that's awful.

That is also, in my opinion (but subject to opinion,  I will grant you) not accurate.  The immunity kicks in when the actor acts with reasonable belief.  If you can show that there was NOT a reasonable belief, then there is no immunity.  The text of the law as written does not prevent that suit. And before you say it again, "reasonable belief" is not the crazy, undefined, who-the-hell-knows-WHAT-that-means standard.  There is plenty of case law from which to make a fair determination what is reasonable and what is not.
Your interpretation is one of my big beefs with the tech side; they let this misconception go, because it helped them. 

 
This is what the text of the bill says. It doesn't say that immunity is removed if you can show that there was no reasonable belief. It doesn't establish a way for the affected party to argue its case (and if there were, how will foreign sites do it?).
 
Write a bill that says, clearly, how that reasonable belief has to be shown and how it can be argued, and that's a different matter. As it stands, the bill doesn't actually say what you're saying. Seriously, it can't be too much to ask legislators to word bills carefully.

See above; a court of competent jurisdiction.  The immunity is only present if the actor acts with reasonable belief.  You still have to be able to show that.  It's simple cause and effect.  You do "this", you get "that".  You don't do "this", you don't get "that".

 
Same as above. The bill doesn't say that. Write a bill that specifies that this reasonable belief has to be proven in front of a court before any action takes place. Write a bill that specifies that any immunity is removed if the private party acted and what they considered a "reasonable belief" actually wasn't.

 
I'm diminishing this because what they agreed with wasn't reality.  And to make matters worse, many people who had access to websites and blogs and twitters and whatnot promulgated false and misleading information to keep the ball rolling.  Why doesn't that bother anyone but me?  If this was WMDs or healthcare, we'd be having a conniption.  Oh wait....

 
But you're playing the same game as them. They say "this could be interpreted that way" and you say "no, it should be interpreted this way". Neither of those interpretations contradicts the actual text of the bill, like the example I'm talking about above.

 
No argument from me at all.  But I still don't ever like the idea of "picking and choosing" what scumbag behavior I can tolerate based on my position on the issues.  That just leads to more bad laws, and more crumbling of the trust we have to have in our representatives for a republic to work. 

 
Agreed.

Why not?  Most people aren't IN the tech industry and therefore don't know the difference.  We didn't really care about "clarity" when we mixed in "free speech" and "due process" into the discussions when they really didn't belong there (or if they did, were a footnote).  You'd be hard pressed to explain to me how software and solution developers are not "the tech industry".  What are they then?  And even if they technically aren't (see what I did there?) they were the tools the tech industry used.  Their "lobbyists of the populace" if you will. 

 
Well, I still care about the "due process" and "free speech" issues because the text of the bill doesn't prevent the scenarios that concern me.
 
Now, I can assure you I don't think that the guy playing in the local orchestra is part of what I refer to as the "content industry"; and you know I'm not asking for the programmer who thinks everything should be free to be in these discussions. My argument is that drafting this bill should've involved more parties than it did. One of those parties is the established tech industry: Google, Microsoft, OpenDNS, Twitter, Facebook, etc.
 

Fair point.  But this stuff does not and should not exist in a vacuum.  We've (generally, not you and me) clouded this with all kinds of terms and concepts with their own baggage, but at the end of the day, this is a bill intended to fight crime.  And that is how it should be judged; no better, no worse.

Well, I'd like to judge it on how well it would fight that crime and which other effects it might have, and I don't think those pan out.