STOP "PROTECT IP (S. 968)/SOPA (HR. 3261)" - Page 92

On January 19 2012 21:47 TheKefka wrote:
Who's is going to decide what sites are and are not dedicated to theft of US property?

On January 19 2012 21:47 TheKefka wrote:
Because Facebook is not Napster,but it sure can be interpreted as a site like Napster if a site is able to

On January 19 2012 21:50 arbitrationus wrote:


Your right. Why should I rely on my personal set of deductive tools and reasoning, when I can allow big websites and big business to do all of my thinking for me?

I mean, Google protested it, right? Scamming-American-pharmaceutical-companies-and-settling-out-of-court-on-every-crime-committed-to-pay-my-way-out-of-an-injunction Google, that Google right?

I was mistaken to question your sources good sir. I should have known that your unfailing trust in the beacon of light known as corporate America would guide your viewpoint much more credibly then researching a topic for yourself could ever hope to achieve.

On January 19 2012 21:56 arbitrationus wrote:


Sec. 102, (b), attorney general's office.

On January 19 2012 22:05 TheKefka wrote:

That was a rhetorical question smart ass.
It doesn't matter who,the point is there is not man on this earth fit for this job because there is no way to really tell for "borderline" sites whether they fall under the description of sec101.

On January 19 2012 21:56 arbitrationus wrote:
Sec. 103 (a) (1) (B) deals with that nicely

Section 103(b) is really hairy, but we’ll attempt to parse through it. I’m not going to copy the whole text here, for the sake of brevity, though I do encourage you to read and understand it. Instead, we’ll discuss the most salient parts.

Payment providers (section (b)(1)) and ad networks ((b)(2)) are required, upon receiving a claim against a site by a copyright holder (section (4)(A)(i)), to cut off all services to the accused site within five days, unless they receive a counter-notification from the operator of the accused site. Note that there is no requirement that the accused be notified of said accusation, and thus, they would have no opportunity to provide a counter-notice. In practice, you’d probably find out about it when you notice that the money stops coming in, maybe a week or two later.

The only way to provide a counter-notice is to agree to submit to U.S. jurisdiction (section (5)(A)(ii)) if you are a foreigner (yikes), and to state under penalty of perjury that your product does not fit the definition of an “Internet site…dedicated to theft of U.S. property.” As we discussed above, it’s nearly impossible to not fit that definition. If you have a comment box, and you state that you aren’t guilty under that definition, you just committed perjury. Enjoy prison. Furthermore:

Any provider of a notification or counter notification who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section…that such site does not meet the criteria of an Internet site dedicated to the theft of U.S. property shall be liable for damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, incurred by the person injured by such misrepresentation as a result of the misrepresentation.

So, if you provide that counter-notification that you aren’t an infringing site, but if you can possibly be painted to fit the definition of an infringing site (and again, you will be), you are now liable for all of the attacking party’s attorney fees. By replying, you give them carte blanche to sue you with no cost to themselves.

Now, if you provide a counter-notice, or an ad network or payment provider fails to cut off service within five days, then the accusing party may then serve you (the site owner) with a lawsuit. If they can’t get a hold of you, they may serve an in rem lawsuit against your site. If they win the lawsuit (and they will, if nobody is there to challenge them), then the court will award them ownership of your site (likely, the domain). This is the point where your accuser is required to notify you that they are taking action against you. This is how the situation could play out.

Plantiff accuses your site of infringement and serves notice to PayPal and Google, et al. PayPal and Google must shut off your payment services and ad services in 5 days. You are never notified.

If a service provider fails to shut off service, then the plantiff may may now take you to court for infringement.
Once you become aware that you’ve been accused of infringement, you either a) let your services get cut off by taking no action, or b) serve a counter-notice, which places you under US jurisdiction (if you’re not in the US) and sets you up for a perjury charge.

If you respond with a counter-notice, then Plantiff may now take you to court for infringement.
Plantiff accuses your site of infringement, and you don’t respond. Plantiff files an in rem lawsuit, and seizes control of your domain.

On January 19 2012 21:59 Roggay wrote:

Ok, since you are so eager to try and insult me, ill play your game.

On January 19 2012 21:30 Roggay wrote:
Do you think I can't see truth in the opposition of this legislation when several important website / community are doing blackouts to protest?

On January 19 2012 22:15 TheKefka wrote:

Either way I don't know what to say anymore.I'm against SOPA man,your for it.good for you.
I'm out wanna watch some ESL >.>

On January 19 2012 21:42 arbitrationus wrote:


Looks about the same TechnicS. Read the bill on that site and you should be up to speed on sopa.

Its only a 75 page bill, which is tiny compared to most pieces of legislation. Give it a try, you wont regret it, and unlike most of the posters on this thread you'll actually be able to form your own opinion on the topic. Kudos to you : D

As far as my personal authenticity (strange way of putting it dude, lol), what would you like to know? <3

On January 19 2012 22:25 LRM)TechnicS wrote:
This will be my first time trying to read an american bill. Indeed it seems way too short at first glance, but still I might get easily frustrated if i find too much stuff I have no clue about and not understand anything for at least 5-10 pages ;D

The whole SOPA thing gives me a broader issue to ponder over though. I feel it is in the best of interest for everybody to try to read the bill and have a personal understanding and opinion about it. Speaking not only about SOPA, but generally, it will be good if everyone (or at least a good % of people in a society) could have solid/intelligent enough skills in doing so, while living in law-organized and so-law-dependent societies. My main question/wondering is, do we, as voters and as society, need to transfer/invest (not to say waste :D) so much time in reading through all the legislations that are about to be passed? I mean the process where a lot of people invest their times to monitor so closely, then advice and then show what to do/what not to do to the Congress, is something i translate into the following : we pay the Congress and we do the job for them (ofc not me, im not US citizen :D). If this is right, it seems rather unoptimal to me. I guess it will be more practical if small portion of the population (but not too small) which is very very well knowledged on the matter and the rest still with some knowledge but not too deep. Which brings us to the situation right now where i am pretty sure the bigger part of people that are aware of this haven't read the whole bill. It's just a situation where a lot of people rely on a tiny portion of very well knowledged (i hope) people that said SOPA will do x and y which will be bad for internet. What I am trying to say is that it might be slightly unfair/unoptimal to bash on people that have not read the whole bill too simply because societies will lose enormous amounts of time in doing so in general.

I would like to know a little more about your scholar background and if you work - what, where? if it is too personal, i will understand and won't ask again

On January 19 2012 22:38 arbitrationus wrote:


I would say that in a perfect world, yes, every citizen of their respective nation SHOULD read every piece of legislation that comes through the halls of their local administrative body. But this isn't a perfect world, so I think a responsible citizen should read AS MUCH legislation as they can. The "as much" part is dependent on the person, and can change on a case by case.

If you can get your hands on a bill (and have the time to dissect it), by all means do so. Especially the more controversial ones like Sopa. Be as involved in the process as you realistically can be.

And with this bill, there really is no excuse. Its literally 75 pages long. This is especially true if you just so happen to be vocalizing your support/opposition to the bill in question. Ill weigh the thoughts and ideas of my qualified peers in high regard, but wouldn't EVER vocalize an opinion as my own unless I had previously come to that conclusion as a result of my own research.

As for the personal questions, I'm a political science major in my third year of college (minor in music). For the most part I'm an autodidact (since I just switched from being an IT major at first), and get most of my info from countless hours of reading/researching/discussing various topics in various forums of discussion and with people from all walks and fields.

I also work as a Computer Lab tech in NYC, in Times Square itself. Naturally, being around computers and the internet all day has given me access to countless hours of gleaning articles and information on a host of topics, mostly philosophical and political in nature.

I wouldn't say I'm particularly qualified as a professional to speak on the issue, but most of my information comes from reputable sources in most of my discussions with others. And in this particular discussion, you can't get any more reputable then the bill itself, which is why I'm heavily encouraging other TL members to read Sopa for themselves before coming to any conclusions about it.

Hope that clarified things a bit.

On January 19 2012 21:56 arbitrationus wrote:


Sec. 102, (b), attorney general's office. That one is clean and cut.



No dude, it can't. Its not enough to just say that the site in question has infringing content on it, that isn't what sopa is targeting. Sec. 103 (a) (1) (B) deals with that nicely, basically the safeguard is that is has to be provable in court that such a site is "primarily designed or operated for the purpose of" illegal infringement.

You MIGHT be able to prove that with a site like Napster, but good look having any admissible evidence (or a willing plaintiff) on something like Facebook or any other social-networking platform. Sopa wont be touching those for the most part.