Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Because if the servers aren't located on US soil, then it's not the US's business to police them. It should be up to the country that the servers for the site is located on.
The main problem with SOPA is that it deals with the whole (i.e.: The internet) while trying to deal with the problem (Piracy).
The other problem is, piracy is impossible to completely kill. Even with SOPA in tact, there WILL still be piracy and it will STILL be impossible to catch. So it's like, for instance, the war on terror. A stupid, impossible concept. You kill one cell, and you just create more problems than what you had before.
Yes, they'll be re-written, but I very much doubt the new bills will be substantially different because if the basic parts of the bills, those that pertain to foreign piracy sites, aren't included there'll be no bill at all.
See post #122 I linked an article in the Stanford Law review that lays it out quite well there why this bill will need to be substantially different if it is to survive.
This is a case of burning the village to save it. It is also unconstitutional. Basically it allows a copyright holder to shut down a website based on an ex-parte hearing. That is lunacy and would not be tolerated in regards to any other type of property because it is such a blatant violation of due process. Heck you cannot even terminate welfare benefits without notice and a right to a hearing.
I've read the Stanford Law's argument that it violates the 5th Amendment's 'due process' clause; however, it doesn't really go to great lengths to explain how it does that. From what I can tell, the injunctive relief is limited and not absolute. There are already similar provisions in the laws already on the books. It just seems to be a bit ridiculous to acknowledge openly on one hand that there are foreign sites that are dedicated to piracy and yet claim that the Constitution mandates that nothing can be done to take them off line.
The way I see it, this legislation is as much a political and economic issue as it is a legal one. Beyond a battle over who can tell internet service and content providers what to do, this is also a battle between the internet service & content providers and the big cable/satellite carriers over the future of "television." Google in particular wants greater leverage to allow its billions of users to freely use content -- legitimate, pirated, or a combination of the two -- for its GoogleTV project, and to get users hooked into a new form of video content delivery, perhaps forever changing the way we view such content. Cable and satellite content & service providers, on the other hand, are steadfastly against such plans and this is one way to put their foot down.
It's ultimately going to be difficult to enforce because it may well push users away from conventional domains -- that I could see. And there is the serious question of whether the government wants to open up that can of worms.
I've read the Stanford Law's argument that it violates the 5th Amendment's 'due process' clause; however, it doesn't really go to great lengths to explain how it does that. From what I can tell, the injunctive relief is limited and not absolute. There are already similar provisions in the laws already on the books. It just seems to be a bit ridiculous to acknowledge openly on one hand that there are foreign sites that are dedicated to piracy and yet claim that the Constitution mandates that nothing can be done to take them off line.
The way I see it, this legislation is as much a political and economic issue as it is a legal one. Beyond a battle over who can tell internet service and content providers what to do, this is also a battle between the internet service & content providers and the big cable/satellite carriers over the future of "television." Google in particular wants greater leverage to allow its billions of users to freely use content -- legitimate, pirated, or a combination of the two -- for its GoogleTV project, and to get users hooked into a new form of video content delivery, perhaps forever changing the way we view such content. Cable and satellite content & service providers, on the other hand, are steadfastly against such plans and this is one way to put their foot down.
The problem is that it uses ex-parte orders to take foreign sites off line and ex-parte orders must be extremely limited to prevent harm while proper process is carried out since ex-parte orders have inherent due process problems. These ex-parte orders are really not that limited since they can last an extremely long time. The problem is it is very difficult to serve process on someone in another country, which makes the use of ex-parte orders and essentially abandoning due process seem so inviting. Also the line of argument in the bill only if you buy the argument that somehow websites can be subject to in rem jurisdiction which is highly debatable and if found not to be the case would result in an absolute due process problem. Even though copyright infringment is a crime we should not throw out the 5th Amendment because the MPAA is having a hissy fit. There are crimes far worse then copyright infringment, the prosecution of which, face serious barriers based on international boarders (most notibly the Polanski rape case) and as such I see no reason to make copyright violation this talisman against the due process requirement.
Last edited by Randomstudent; 01-19-2012 at 12:07 PM..
See post #122 I linked an article in the Stanford Law review that lays it out quite well there why this bill will need to be substantially different if it is to survive.
Ok, I read that. Don't know how I missed it before. But, I have a couple of issues:
1. That article makes the case that purveyors of pirated good would just go around the established internet structure and do it anyhow. Yes, that's probably so, but is that a good enough reason not to try to stop them? After all, that's tantamount to saying all speed limit signs should come down because people are going to speed anyhow. Not only that, but if they CAN do that, why aren't they now?
2. It does make a pretty good case for the lack of due process, especially in the House version. However, that horse has left the barn already and I don't know if it can be recovered. As you probably well know, precedent is paramount under our system of law and the precedent that people, goods and services can be corralled without due process has been firmly established already via the Patriot Act and warrantless wiretaps. I strongly expect that any challenge mounted to an action under these bills in regards to due process would fail and that the court's would cite the Patriot Act as a determining precedent.
3. The article seems to be making the case that free and unrestricted accessibility to the global internet outweighs any other consideration and that the piracy of copyrighted material is, in fact, free speech. That's a pretty shaky argument, in my opinion. Moreover, the idea that the free exchange of information should preclude the enforcement of laws is probably not a can of worms we really want to open.
In the end, even the concerns expressed by Stanford can be addressed in a better bill. Nothing can be addressed if we just accept the status quo, if we allow people and whole industries to be stolen from with impunity.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Under SOPA, you could get 5 years for uploading a Michael Jackson song...
