[Tiva]

Originally Posted by Echo-chan713

which kind of sucks cause my store uses craigslist in order to bring in customers

It is open, you just have to wait 10 seconds to get the link

[Ashy]

and with wikipedia you just hit esc before it goes to the blackout screen

[Alpha]

True enough. There are ways around it, it is just a pain. Therefore still demonstrating the point.

[Ashy]

if this passes though youl find that most large internet companies will move their servers to other countries that have no piracy act, but unfortunately for you guys thatll only benefit the rest of the world

[Alpha]

Pretty much. Such is the reason why I hope it doesn't pass, and also why I will be making sure to vote this next election so that I can state I did my pat at least.

[Tiva]

Yeah, I am voting...

[Belial]

Originally Posted by Ashy

if this passes though youl find that most large internet companies will move their servers to other countries that have no piracy act, but unfortunately for you guys thatll only benefit the rest of the world

even without SOPA, you aren't safe if your company moves from the US.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-16544335

[Funkduder]

*sits and relaxes by the fires of healthy conversation*

I personally think that this bill sucks, but the idea of ending pirating isn't a bad idea. The only problem is that it can get over-regulated and over-powered pretty quickly.

[Reyoki]

This won't stop with just sites like Craigslist and Wiki, though. It could even go as far as retail store sites, like Claire's or Gamestop, that display their products which have copyrighted material, like Hello Kitty or Pokemon, pictured on them. Goodbye internet shopping to the world!

[Tiva]

Still wondering, what does Craigslist have copyrighted? Just asking....

[Coda]

Craigslist has ads for people selling things. Some people use stock photos of the stuff they're selling. If even one user did that, and the owner of that stock photo filed a SOPA claim, Craigslist could have its payment processing revoked.

[Tiva]

great.... that is so crazy....

[Coda]

You know, actually, I need to do my research on that. My example was intended to be hyperbole, just to demonstrate the worst-case scenario, but there are limitations to SOPA's power written into the bill that I should investigate.

[Tiva]

Yeah, maybe remove there posting but Craigslist can not be closed down for all areas.....

[Coda]

Well, the first thing to observe is that SOPA is only capable of targeting non-US websites that serve US users. This makes Craigslist immune, as well as Wikipedia and YouTube. Coincidentally, since The Pirate Bay is a .com site it's also considered to be a domestic site (based on the definitions ilsted in section 101) and is immune to SOPA.

Second, section 102 is in the hands of the Attorney General, not the rightsholder. This means that the only way to have SOPA brought to bear is to convince the AG that it's worth his time. Unfortunately, it also gives the AG unilateral, unchecked power to block any foreign site, because there aren't sufficient regulations on who the AG is allowed to target.

Section 103 is the scarier part. This one allows a rightsholder to raise a claim against any non-US site that it feels has harmed it under some frighteningly broad conditions. The operator of the site can either do nothing and accept the block, or raise a counter-claim within five days. But if they raise a counter-claim, they have to submit to US law. And in doing so, they open themselves to a lawsuit for copyright infringement, and according to SOPA they have to pay the attorney's fees of the plaintiff if they're found to be guilty (and the only thing necessary to establish guilt is to allow people to post stuff, because someone might post a link).

And then section 201 is the part that actually affects US residents because it redefines some aspects of copyright infringement. This is the part that says "if a song is worth $1, and you sing the song and post it on YouTube and get 2500 views, you're now a felon because $2500 is more than the threshold for misdemeanor infringement." This is also the part that makes you liable for damages if you used something under what you believed was Fair Use or some other legal protection but were wrong about your belief -- under DMCA, being wrong just meant you had to take it down and maybe pay some damages if you made money on it; under SOPA, you would have a permanent criminal record that would bar you from getting most jobs for a very long time, even if you didn't make any money. And a real danger here would be that a website operator might be found complicit in the infringement by providing the service, meaning the website operator would ALSO be a criminal.

TL;DR: If you're an American it's actually not as bad as the hype would indicate (if you're not American then you'd better get yourself a .com address right now, what a handy loophole), but it's still a terrible piece of legislation just because of how badly it's written and how poorly defined the actual offenses are.

Edit: If SOPA passes, a useful challenge might be to appeal to the Eighth Amendment, to consider if the punishment would be considered "cruel and unusual" relative to the crime you've been accused of.

[Ashy]

Originally Posted by Belial

even without SOPA, you aren't safe if your company moves from the US.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-16544335

yeah but my country will NEVER extradite a citizen after what happened to David Hicks. the dude from wiki leaks is australian :P