SOPA, PIPA, and now OPEN

[eyer]

While grassroots public objection was enough to send the House's Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and its sister legislation in the Senate, the Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA) back to the rewrite drawing board (they'll both reappear for later Congressional vote)...

...Republican House of Representative Darrell Issa of California, along with 24 co-sponsors, introduced an alternative last Wednesday during the Internet's blackout of SOPA/PIPA; it's titled, Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade, it's nick'd OPEN, and it's House Resolution 3782.

PCWorld says this about the resolution:

OPEN would give oversight to the International Trade Commission (ITC) instead of the Justice Department, focuses on foreign-based websites, includes an appeals process, and would apply only to websites that “willfully” promote copyright violation.

But...

...Heather Callaghan @ Activist Post adds this:

The bill pretends to only target foreign websites, while keeping Americans free to surf and post, but the bill’s wording is wide open to pursue American sites. Just one example: when describing an infringing site, it starts with those “that are accessed through a non-domestic domain name,” but continues in section (8)(A)(ii) for any site that “conducts business directed to residents of the United States.”

You can read more from one of the early ringers of the OPEN warning bell @

http://www.activistpost.com/2012/01/sopa-and-pipa-fully-alive-and-new-bill.html

 

[Liar]

The big problem with SOPA was the proponents said it only targeted foreign sites that were "wholesale" devoted to piracy. It didn't. It also targeted foreign and domestic sites that linked to them. And nullified the "safe harbor" rule that kept user generated sites from being fully resposible for every user's actions. So that if I write a link to "illegalpiratesite.ru" here, the DOJ could shut down Literotica and/or it's funding.

The other big problem was that it gave the DOJ the right to shut down or cut financial services to a site pending investigation. With no way of getting compensated for loss of business, goodwill (for an online startup, momentum can mean the difference between bankrupcy and millions in profit) etc, if it turned out you were innocent. Not even by lawsuit.

From what I've read, those were the specifics that Issa and some others were against in SOPA. The questions here seems to be

1) how well "willfully promote copyright violation" is specified. What is and what is not willful behavior? Is that left to the whim of some judge of pencil pusher?
2) how does this law's version of due process look? And how are the rights of an accused/suspected part adressed?

If those things are sufficiently adressed, I don't see the problem. Not that I think they are. But hey.

 

[Mike_Yates]

While grassroots public objection was enough to send the House's Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and its sister legislation in the Senate, the Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA) back to the rewrite drawing board (they'll both reappear for later Congressional vote)...

...Republican House of Representative Darrell Issa of California, along with 24 co-sponsors, introduced an alternative last Wednesday during the Internet's blackout of SOPA/PIPA; it's titled, Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade, it's nick'd OPEN, and it's House Resolution 3782.

PCWorld says this about the resolution:

OPEN would give oversight to the International Trade Commission (ITC) instead of the Justice Department, focuses on foreign-based websites, includes an appeals process, and would apply only to websites that “willfully” promote copyright violation.

But...

...Heather Callaghan @ Activist Post adds this:

The bill pretends to only target foreign websites, while keeping Americans free to surf and post, but the bill’s wording is wide open to pursue American sites. Just one example: when describing an infringing site, it starts with those “that are accessed through a non-domestic domain name,” but continues in section (8)(A)(ii) for any site that “conducts business directed to residents of the United States.”

You can read more from one of the early ringers of the OPEN warning bell @

http://www.activistpost.com/2012/01/sopa-and-pipa-fully-alive-and-new-bill.html

Our elected representatives know exactly what will happen to them, their families, or their careers if they don't vote on these bills like they are told to.

 

[klippert]

SOPA, PIPA and now OPEN.....= Net Neutrality. Guess this isn't the World Wide Web Al Gore invented

This is scary shee'it. Inside this bill. The authority for the president to declare a national emergency....Un-defined, needless to say. With a National emergency. The Government can close down the internet.....Yes sir.

These wonderful Idea's gathered steam in 2008....Hmmmm Who had control of the house, senate and why howz

 

[Mike_Yates]

SOPA, PIPA and now OPEN.....= Net Neutrality. Guess this isn't the World Wide Web Al Gore invented

This is scary shee'it. Inside this bill. The authority for the president to declare a national emergency....Un-defined, needless to say. With a National emergency. The Government can close down the internet.....Yes sir.

These wonderful Idea's gathered steam in 2008....Hmmmm Who had control of the house, senate and why howz

The president is a joke.