The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and it's supporters.

[R.C. Christian]

Sounds far fetched but possible. The filthy legislation it tantamount to censorship and will probably pass.

 

[nitroz]

Sounds far fetched but possible. The filthy legislation it tantamount to censorship and will probably pass.

If it does, there would be an insane shitstorm.

Remember lulzsec?
They started because of SONY harassing GeoHot and went on a 50 day hacking spree. (it was just run by 6 people)


Now imagine the internet being /mostly/ censored with hundreds or thousands of hackers with the same or greater expertise on hacking. That would simply NOT be pretty....

 

[Cervantes22]

Sounds far fetched but possible. The filthy legislation it tantamount to censorship and will probably pass.

If it does, there would be an insane shitstorm.

Remember lulzsec?
They started because of SONY harassing GeoHot and went on a 50 day hacking spree. (it was just run by 6 people)


Now imagine the internet being /mostly/ censored with hundreds or thousands of hackers with the same or greater expertise on hacking. That would simply NOT be pretty....

Part of me wants to see the perfect online shitstorm. The rest of me wants SOPA dead and it's backers out of Congress.

One of the sponsors was John Mccain, and I am really glad he lost in 08 right now.

 

[nitroz]

Sounds far fetched but possible. The filthy legislation it tantamount to censorship and will probably pass.

If it does, there would be an insane shitstorm.

Remember lulzsec?
They started because of SONY harassing GeoHot and went on a 50 day hacking spree. (it was just run by 6 people)


Now imagine the internet being /mostly/ censored with hundreds or thousands of hackers with the same or greater expertise on hacking. That would simply NOT be pretty....

Part of me wants to see the perfect online shitstorm. The rest of me wants SOPA dead and it's backers out of Congress.

One of the sponsors was John Mccain, and I am really glad he lost in 08 right now.

Yeah, I want to see hell break loose aswell and the backers lose their jobs.

Mccain failed. And I'm also glad he didn't make it. (EVEN MORE GLAD PALIN DIDNT MAKE IT. BUT SHE HAS A GOOD RACK!)

 

[nitroz]

SOPA Is a Symbol of the Movie Industry's Failure to Innovate - Steve Blank - Business - The Atlantic

This year the movie industry made $30 billion (1/3 in the U.S.) from box-office revenue. But the total movie industry revenue was $87 billion. Where did the other $57 billion come from? From sources that the studios at one time claimed would put them out of business: Pay-per view TV, cable and satellite channels, video rentals, DVD sales, online subscriptions and digital downloads.

The music and movie business has been consistently wrong in its claims that new platforms and channels would be the end of its businesses. In each case, the new technology produced a new market far larger than the impact it had on the existing market.

1920's - the record business complained about radio. The argument was because radio is free, you can't compete with free. No one was ever going to buy music again.
1940's - movie studios had to divest their distribution channel - they owned over 50% of the movie theaters in the U.S. "It's all over," complained the studios. In fact, the number of screens went from 17,000 in 1948 to 38,000 today.
1950's - broadcast television was free; the threat was cable television. Studios argued that their free TV content couldn't compete with paid.
1970's - Video Cassette Recorders (VCR's) were going to be the end of the movie business. The movie businesses and its lobbying arm MPAA fought it with "end of the world" hyperbole. The reality? After the VCR was introduced, studio revenues took off like a rocket. With a new channel of distribution, home movie rentals surpassed movie theater tickets.
1998 - the MPAA got congress to pass the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), making it illegal for you to make a digital copy of a DVD that you actually purchased.
2000 - Digital Video Recorders (DVR) like TiVo allowing consumer to skip commercials was going to be the end of the TV business. DVR's reignite interest in TV.
2006 - broadcasters sued Cablevision (and lost) to prevent the launch of a cloud-based DVR to its customers.
Today it's the Internet that's going to put the studios out of business. Sound familiar?

Why was the movie industry consistently wrong? And why do they continue to fight new technology?

A FAILURE OF INNOVATION AND REGULATION

The movie industry was born with a single technical standard - 35mm film, and for decades had a single way to distribute its content - movie theaters (which until 1948 the studios owned.) It was 75 years until studios had to deal with technology changing their platform and distribution channel. And when it happened (cable, VCR's, DVD's, DVR's, the Internet,) it was a relentless onslaught. The studios responded by trying to shut down the new technology and/or distribution channels through legislation and the courts.

But why does the movie business think their solution is in Washington and legislation?

History and success.

In the 1920's individual states were beginning to censor movies and the federal government was threatening to do so as well. The studios set up their own self censorship and rating system keeping most sex and politics off the screen for 40 years. Never again wanting to be at the losing side of a political battle they created the movie industry's lobbying arm, MPAA.

By the 1960's, the MPPA achieved regulatory capture (where an industry co-opts the very people who are regulating it,) when they hired Jack Valenti, who ran the studios' lobbying efforts for the next 38-years. Ironically, it was Valenti's skill in hobbling competitive innovation that negated any need for studios to develop agility, vision and technology leadership.

The introduction of new technology is always disruptive to existing markets, particularly to content/copyright owners whose sell through well-established distribution channels. The incumbents tend to have short-sighted goals and often fail to recognize that more money can be made on new platforms and new distribution channels.

In an industry facing constant technology shifts the exec staff and boards of the studios have lawyers, MBAs and financial managers, but no management skill in dealing with disruption. So they rely on lobbying ($110 million a year,) lawsuits, campaign contributions (wonder why the President won't be vetoing SOPA?) and Public Relations.

Ironically, the six major movie studios have a great technology lab in Silicon Valley with projects in streaming rights, Video On Demand, Ultraviolet, etc. But lacking the support from the studio CEOs or boards, the lab languishes in the backwaters of the studios' strategy. Instead of leading with new technology, the studios lead with litigation, legislation and lobbying. (Imagine if the $110 million/year spent on lobbying went to disruptive innovation.)

THE BIG LIE OF PIRACY

One of the claims that studios make is that they need legislation to stop piracy. The fact is piracy is rampant in all forms of commerce. Video games and software have been targets since their inception. Grocery and retail stores euphemistically call it shrinkage. Credit card companies call it fraud. But none use regulation as often as the movie studios to solve a business problem. And none are so willing to do collateral damage to other innovative industries (VCRs, DVRs, cloud storage and now the Internet itself.)

The studios don't even pretend that this legislation benefits consumers. It's all about protecting short-term profit.

When lawyers, MBAs and financial managers run your industry and your lobbyists are ex-Senators, understanding technology and innovation is not one of your core capabilities.

The SOPA bill (and DNS blocking) is what happens when someone with the title of anti-piracy or copyright lawyer has greater clout than your head of new technology. SOPA gives corporations unprecedented power to censor almost any site on the Internet. It's as if someone shoplifts in your store, SOPA allows the government to shut down your store.

History has shown that time and market forces provide equilibrium in balancing interests, whether the new technology is a video recorder, a personal computer, an MP3 player or now the Net. It's prudent for courts and congress to exercise caution before restructuring liability theories for the purpose of addressing specific market abuses, despite their apparent present magnitude.

What the music and movie industry should be doing in Washington is promoting legislation to adapt copyright law to new technology -- and then leading the transition to the new platforms.

The U.S. State Department has been championing the Internet Freedom initiative across the world. Secretary of State Clinton said, "...when ideas are blocked, information deleted, conversations stifled, and people constrained in their choices, the Internet is diminished for all of us."

It's too bad the head of the MPAA - an ex Senator - made a mockery of her words when he wondered "why our online censorship can't be like China?"

We wonder, "Why can't the film industry innovate like Silicon Valley?"

 

[nitroz]

MLG Stands Against SOPA, Removes Domains From GoDaddy

Even though GoDaddy resigned from supporting Stop Online Piracy Act after they lost thousands and thousands of registered domain users, Major League Gaming is still making their voice heard by having all their domains moved off the GoDaddy servers.

According to the Examiner, Major League Gaming confirmed that they would not be supporting the Stop Online Piracy Act with the following comments...

MLG would like to officially announce that we have removed our entire network, which encompasses over 100 domains, from GoDaddy.com in response to their support of SOPA. Moving forward, we will be using Namecheap for all of our hosting needs.

MLG is firmly against both the specifics of SOPA and the philosophy behind the bill. We urge all of you to read up on the issue and draw your own conclusions.


Another win for free speech? I guess so.

This follows closely on the heels of Epic Games denouncing support for SOPA, despite the fact that they are associated with the ESA who publicly came forward to announce their support for SOPA.

The bill itself basically enables the United States government and copyright holders to directly shutdown or block access to websites that may infringe on the copyrights of the original IP holders. It's a bit of an extreme, fascists approach to the slippery issue of piracy and intellectual property and content protection.

After so many heavy hitters and big names have come forward to publicly denounce support for SOPA, it has to make you question what the heads behind the bill are thinking about the whole thing? For the most part I imagine many of the representatives are either completely oblivious to the bill's ramifications or they simply want to exercise some totalitarian-style control over the internet.

 

[nitroz]

SOPA: How much does online piracy really cost the economy? - The Washington Post

The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) has been widely panned as a dubious idea, uniting both liberals and conservatives in opposition. But doesn’t the bill, at the very least, identify a serious problem? Isn’t online piracy inflicting all sorts of damage on the U.S. economy? That’s the argument. But the actual numbers are surprisingly hard to pin down.


(John Vizcaino - Reuters) For example, the Motion Picture Association of America estimates that piracy costs the U.S. movie industry some $20.5 billion per year. But Julian Sanchez scrutinizes these figures and finds they don’t hold up. After you remove all the double-counting and restrict the focus solely to American users — which is the only thing SOPA addresses, anyway — then, he notes, those industry-estimated losses come to just $446 million per year (“roughly the amount grossed globally by Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel&#8221.

And even those numbers might not be right. The Government Accountability Office has raised further questions and concerns about the copyright industry’s claims of losses here. Part of the difficulty here is that it’s not always easy to tally up the true costs of piracy. For instance, if a person illegally downloads a movie or song that he never would’ve downloaded otherwise, then it’s not clear what the losses actually amount to (the benefits, by contrast, are fairly clear).

More to the point, as the GAO observes, just because the movie and record industries lose a certain amount of money from online piracy in the United States doesn’t mean the economy as a whole suffers by that exact same amount — particularly if the money that would have been spent on those pirated movies and albums just ends up getting spent elsewhere.

Now, none of that is to suggest that online piracy is a non-issue. And these are hardly the strongest arguments against SOPA — the more substantive concerns are that the bill would impinge on free speech, impose an undue burden on companies like Google, and potentially fracture the architecture of the Internet. Still, it’s worth getting a better sense of the actual scale of the relevant problem here.

 

[uscitizen]

So stealing is ok?

 

[nitroz]

This is an example on why SOPA shouldn't be passed. The backers of it don't give a damn about your rights or the rights of others. They just want to have ways to extort money from you.




SOPA sponsor Rep. Lamar Smith to SOPA opponents: You don’t matter

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), the chief sponsor of the ‘Stop Online Piracy Act’ (SOPA), says that criticisms of the controversial legislation are entirely unfounded, and that the online communities that oppose the bill are illegitimate.

“The criticism of this bill is completely hypothetical; none of it is based in reality. Not one of the critics was able to point to any language in the bill that would in any way harm the Internet. Their accusations are simply not supported by any facts,” said Smith in a statement, quoted by Roll Call.

When asked about the burgeoning opposition to the bill from online communities like Reddit.com, Smith added: “It’s a vocal minority. Because they’re strident doesn’t mean they’re either legitimate or large in number. One, they need to read the language. Show me the language. There’s nothing they can point to that does what they say it does do. I think their fears are unfounded.”

There are so many things just factually wrong about Rep. Smith’s statement that it’s hard to know where to begin. So let’s just take his asinine dismissal from the top, shall we?

First, Rep. Smith says that “not one of the critics” could point to specific language in the bill that would “harm the Internet in any way.” No? What about the 83 Internet pioneers — we’re talking people like Vint Cerf, co-designer of TCP/IP; Jim Gettys, editor of the HTTP/1.1 protocol standards; Leonard Kleinrock, a key developer of the ARAPANET; in other words, the very people who built the Internet — who say that SOPA (and the Protect IP Act, PIPA), “will risk fragmenting the Internet’s global domain name system (DNS) and have other capricious technical consequences” because of the bills’ requirement that Internet service providers block domain names of infringing sites.

In their letter to Congress, this group of Internet founders also argue that SOPA “will create an environment of tremendous fear and uncertainty for technological innovation, and seriously harm the credibility of the United States in its role as a steward of key Internet infrastructure.” If that’s not damaging to the Internet, what is it? To Rep. Smith, it’s nothing, apparently. Hyperbole.

Rep. Smith’s own hyperbole goes against the opinion of former Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Stewart Baker, who agrees with the Internet founders when he says that SOPA will “do great damage to Internet security, mainly by putting obstacles in the way of DNSSEC, a protocol designed to limit certain kinds of Internet crime,” among other repercussions.

Now, in terms of Rep. Smith’s statement that the anti-SOPA crowd is neither “legitimate” nor “large in number,” well, that is so obviously false, it would be laughable if it weren’t so infuriating.

As we have mentioned before, the list of vocal SOPA opponents includes more than 850 companies, organizations and individual experts who are adamantly against the legislation’s passage — far more than appear on the House Judiciary Committee’s list (pdf) of SOPA supporters. This includes the Internet’s largest companies: Google, AOL, Facebook, eBay, LinkedIn, Mozilla, PayPal, Wikipedia, Twitter and Tumblr (to name only a few).

The list of SOPA opponents also includes 425 venture capitalists and entrepreneurs — i.e. job creators. The editorial boards of The New York Times and Los Angeles Times are on the list, as are 39 public advocacy groups, nonprofits and think tanks who believe that SOPA will stifle freedom of speech. These are joined by 61 international human rights groups, and 116 academics and law experts from the nation’s top law schools. In short: The list of SOPA critics could not be any more legitimate.

In addition to these industry, human rights and law experts, the anti-SOPA faction includes countless individuals — voters, as they’re called in Washington, who have sent hundreds of thousands of letters to Congress, and made nearly 90,000 calls in one day to their representatives, as Tech Dirt’s Mike Masnick reports, urging them to denounce SOPA.

For the sake of brevity, we won’t go into detail about Reddit’s apparently successful GoDaddy boycott over the company’s SOPA support, or the countless of other less public actions concerned citizens are taking to fight this bill. But it’s important for those of you on the sidelines to know that when Rep. Smith questions the legitimacy of those who oppose SOPA, he’s questioning the legitimacy of the American people, and damaging the democratic principles upon which this country relies.

 

[nitroz]

Rep. Lamar Smith Decides Lying About, Insulting And Dismissing Opposition To SOPA Is A Winning Strategy | Techdirt

It appears that SOPA sponsor Rep. Lamar Smith has decided that his best strategy continues to be to ignore any and all criticism of SOPA and pretend that none of it "is legitimate." That's kinda funny since we've shown, in great detail, where many of the problems in the bill are (see here, here and here for example -- all of which cite specific language from the bill). And yet, according to Smith:

"The criticism of this bill is completely hypothetical; none of it is based in reality," Smith said in a statement to Roll Call. "Not one of the critics was able to point to any language in the bill that would in any way harm the Internet. Their accusations are simply not supported by any facts."

We've done exactly what he's claimed we haven't -- as have numerous other parties, including famed Constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe, who also cited specific language in the bill. Ditto with former DHS Assistant Secretary, Stewart Baker, who also cited language from the bill about how SOPA will cause significant security problems for the internet.

It makes you wonder: just who does Lamar Smith think he's fooling?

Does he really think that if he just keeps on repeating these blatant lies someone, somewhere, will believe them?

From there, he goes from the ridiculous to the absurd by claiming that the widespread outcry over SOPA is just a "vocal minority," rather than any legitimate movement against the bill:

"It’s a vocal minority, he said. "Because they’re strident doesn’t mean they’re either legitimate or large in number. One, they need to read the language. Show me the language. There’s nothing they can point to that does what they say it does do. I think their fears are unfounded."

Hundreds of thousands of letters sent? Nearly 90,000 calls in a single day? This is not a "vocal minority." This is a large and growing segment of the population who is very, very concerned. And, they have shown him the language, contrary to his blatantly false claims. Dismissing the concerns of pretty much the entire tech sector and their users (not to mention the folks over at Reddit...) doesn't seem wise. It seems like someone who doesn't understand the internet, not just in trying to regulate it, but in how the internet can be used to rally support against those who seek to damage it.

 

[nitroz]

Al Gore Doesn’t Like SOPA, Either | WebProNews

Did you really expect the “inventor” of the Internet to agree with a bill that’s so potentially damaging to the foundation on which the web resides, even if he himself doesn’t know anything about DNS? Truth be told, considering the fact that Al Gore is a Harvard graduate, he probably has a very good idea about the potential threats the oft-discussed protection acts pose to both the structure of the Internet and various freedoms of expression.

In fact, from Gore’s perspective, “there is hardly anything as important as to save and protect the vibrancy and freedom of the Internet,” which should provide all the insight you need to grasp the former Vice President’s position. These words were offered by Gore at an event held by CareerBuilder, and, of course, there is video of his response:


While Gore is often made fun of for the “creating the Internet” stuff — something he was actually quoted by CNN as saying — the fact is, Gore played a crucial role in bringing the Internet to the American masses during his tenure as Vice President. While APRANET represents the true beginning of the Internet as we know it, the adoption of the Information Superhighway came about under Gore’s tenure under Bill Clinton, thanks to the Vice President’s advocacy.

With that in mind, it’s easy to see why Gore is so opposed to the idea of SOPA/PIPA. While he acknowledges content creators need protection as well, he doesn’t believe the current bills under review are the way to go about protecting them.

Too bad Gore’s words, like most of the SOPA/PIPA opponents out there, will fall on deaf ears; at least as far as Lamar Smith is concerned.

 

[nitroz]

So stealing is ok?

No, it's not.

But neither is suing you for $$$$$$$$$$ and making you a convicted felon for just posting content online that you rightfully bought.


SOPA is wrong in so many ways.



If SOPA was passed, I would encourage people to pirate more.
Stripping people of their rights is not an excuse for YOUR failure to innovate.

 

[nitroz]

SOPA alternative is blasted by music industry group - The Washington Post

Music industry group the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has rejected OPEN (the Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade Act), the bill proposed by Representative Darrell Issa and Senator Ron Wyden as an alternative to the controversy-laden SOPA. A chief difference between SOPA and OPEN is the governmental division responsible for enforcing infringements — while SOPA would be policed by the Department of Justice, OPEN would belong to the International Trade Commission.

In a blog post on the RIAA website, Senior Executive VP Mitch Glazier says that the ITC "clearly does not operate on the short time frame necessary to be effective," citing the delays in the RIM vs. Kodak case — filed in January 2010 but now expected to be ruled on in September — as a prime example. Glazier sees these delays as hugely damaging, saying that each day a piracy-facilitating website stays online can cost millions of dollars to "American companies, employees and [the] economy," and be "an ongoing threat to the security and safety of our citizens." Classic scaremongering if we've ever seen it.



Considering it's been a chief proponent of SOPA from the start, it's hardly surprising that RIAA opposes a less far-reaching bill. However, despite the obvious strength of feeling by the association, support for SOPA from other quarters has floundered.

 

[nitroz]

Paul Ryan turns against SOPA following a Reddit-based attack | Privacy Inc. - CNET News

Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican who was talked about last summer as a potential GOP presidential candidate and who delivered his party's response to President Obama's last State of the Union address, said today that he would vote against SOPA on the House floor.
Paul Ryan, far left, and other top Republicans visit Facebook in September 2011.



Support for and opposition to SOPA and its Senate counterpart, Protect IP, doesn't follow traditional party lines. The conservative Heritage Foundation has joined the ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation in expressing concerns about granting government the power to deliver an Internet death penalty to allegedly piratical Web sites. (See CNET's FAQ on SOPA.)

Today's statement from Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget committee who toured SOPA-hating Silicon Valley in September, says:

The Internet is one of the most magnificent expressions of freedom and free enterprise in history. It should stay that way. While H.R. 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act, attempts to address a legitimate problem, I believe it creates the precedent and possibility for undue regulation, censorship and legal abuse. I do not support H.R. 3261 in its current form and will oppose the legislation should it come before the full House.

It's not entirely clear what prompted Ryan's announcement: he was never actually a sponsor of the legislation, as his press aides noted on Twitter last month. A Ryan spokesman did not immediately respond to queries from CNET this morning.

But the most likely cause is a campaign called Operation Pull Ryan that was launched on Reddit.com.

It was a somewhat bizarre approach: instead of targeting one of SOPA's 32 sponsors or one of Protect IP's 41 sponsors, the Reddit-ers mounted a campaign against a lawmaker who was neutral on the legislation.

Over the last month, threads with titles like Congressman Paul Ryan Database: Phase 2 Analyze and Attack and Simple Vector Logo for Operation Pull Ryan Shirts or Sticker or Whatever appeared, and the Reddit crew soon embraced the candidacy of Rob Zerban, a Democrat seeking to challenge Ryan. (One thread, perhaps a bit more thoughtful than others, worried "Is this really about SOPA or is this about Paul Ryan's Medicare plan?")

Zerban's campaign Web site showed no prior interest in the finer points of technology policy or copyright law. But the candidate was quick to recognize an opportunity when he saw one, and participated in a Reddit question and answer session that went beyond SOPA to military detentions, health care, drug legalization, and personal history. (Q: Who has been your single biggest inspiration? Zerban: My mom.)

"You've helped me raise over $15,000 in the last 48 hours and hundreds have signed up to volunteer in the effort to unseat Paul Ryan in 2012," Zerban said afterward. "I can't thank you enough."

This isn't the first scalp that the Reddit-ers can plausibly claim. Last month, a boycott organized on the site prompted the domain registrar GoDaddy to reverse its support for SOPA to formal opposition.

SOPA, of course, represents the latest effort from the Motion Picture Association of America, the Recording Industry Association of America, and their allies to counter what they view as rampant piracy on the Internet, especially offshore Web sites. It would allow the Justice Department to obtain an order to be served on search engines, Internet service providers, and other companies, forcing them to make a suspected piratical Web site effectively vanish. It's opposed (PDF) by many Internet companies, users, and civil liberties groups.

The debate over SOPA in the House Judiciary committee is expected to resume this month; a Senate floor debate on Protect IP will begin on January 24.

 

[nitroz]

Did Mitt Romney Just Come Out Against SOPA/PIPA? | Techdirt

At a recent campaign stop, a small business owner asked Mitt Romney for his opinion on SOPA, noting that it would likely kill her business. Romney responded without discussing the bills specifically, but said that he's totally against bills like this that just focus on "stopping bad acts," and that he wants politicians to focus on encouraging businesses to do good things.
I don't know if that's an unqualified rejection of SOPA/PIPA, but it sure comes close. He's talking about out-of-touch regulators who've spent their lives in DC, rather than in business, and "all they think about is how to stop business and stop the bad guys," (which does, in fact, describe SOPA/PIPA) but, Romney says, this is just a sign that "they don't like business very much." Indeed. SOPA/PIPA are very much bills that focus solely on trying to "stop bad guys," without taking into account the massive amount of harm that will be done to the good guys -- the companies who are innovating and are creating jobs. Given that he doesn't really discuss specifics, and just talks in generalities about bad regulations and harming business, it's possible that he has no idea what SOPA/PIPA are about, and gave a Generic Politicians'(tm) answer to a question. But hopefully more people will hold him to this, and get him to confirm that he's against these bills.

Either way, with more people asking about SOPA/PIPA, it's definitely starting to become a campaign issue...

 

[nitroz]

Geeks to Testify (Finally!) About SOPA Blacklisting Implications | Threat Level | Wired.com

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-California), a major opponent of the Stop Online Piracy Act, announced Monday he is bringing in the techies to hold a public hearing highlighting the online security implications of a proposed bill that would force changes to internet infrastructure to fight online copyright infringement.

The announcement came three weeks after a markup of SOPA in the House Judiciary Committee was abruptly postponed amid concerns over its blacklisting element, which lets the attorney general order changes to core internet infrastructure in order to stop copyright infringement.

The fight pits the big donors of Hollywood against Silicon Valley, relative newcomers to the world of influence peddling. Hollywood argues that millions of jobs are lost a year due to pirate websites, while the tech world argues that the open nature of the internet has created millions of jobs and that copyright holders already have tools to fight illegal downloaders.

“An open internet is crucial to American job creation, government operations, and the daily routines of Americans from all walks of life,” Issa said in a statement. “The public deserves a full discussion about the consequences of changing the way Americans access information and communicate on the internet today.”

Issa is the chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The hearing is set for Jan. 18.

The legislation mandates that ISPs alter records in the net’s system for looking up website names, known as DNS, so that users couldn’t navigate to the site. Or, if ISPs choose not to introduce false information into DNS at the urging of the Justice Department, they instead would be required to employ some other method, such as deep-packet inspection, to prevent American citizens from visiting infringing sites.

ISPs, could, for instance, adopt tactics used by the Great Chinese Firewall to sniff for traffic going to a blacklisted site and simply block it.

Among those scheduled to testify are Stewart Baker, the former Department of Homeland Security policy director, who has said SOPA “would still do great damage to internet security.”

Also slated to testify is DNS expert Dan Kaminsky of DKH. Putting false information into the DNS system — the equivalent of the net’s phonebook — would be ineffective, frustrate security initiatives and lead to software workarounds, according to a paper co-signed by security experts Steve Crocker of Shinkuro, David Dagon of Georgia Tech, Danny McPherson of Verisign, Paul Vixie of Internet Systems Consortium and Kaminsky.

Others expected to testify include Brad Burnham, Partner at Union Square Ventures; Michael Macleod-Ball, attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union; Lanham Napier, chief executive officer of Rackspace; Leonard Napolitano, director of the Center for Computer Sciences & Information Technology at Sandia National Laboratories; and Alexis Ohanian, co-founder of Reddit.com.

On Dec. 16, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), who heads the House Judiciary Committee, halted the SOPA markup so the committee could hear from technical experts. However, no new hearing before that committee has been scheduled.

The Judiciary Committee, however, did hear from the Motion Picture Industry Association of America in November, but has never called an expert on internet architecture. Michael O’Leary, an MPAA vice president, had testified before the committee that security concerns were “overstated.”

In the security context, many internet experts maintain the bill would break the internet’s universal character and hamper U.S. government-supported efforts to rollout out DNS-SEC, which is intended to prevent hackers from hijacking the net through fake DNS entries.

 

[nitroz]

Boycott SOPA Android app scans barcodes, IDs pro-SOPA companies - National Technology | Examiner.com

This should stir up even more upset among those who are strong critics of SOPA (the Stop Internet Piracy Act proposed by the House of Representatives). The new BoyCott SOPA Android app can scan bar codes, after which it will return a "yea" or "nay" in terms of SOPA support by that company.

As of the time of the release of the app, there were more than 800 brands / companies on our list. We're sure domain name registrar GoDaddy.com is no longer on that list; the company reversed its support of SOPA after seeing huge backlash, including companies transferring their domains to other registrars. The data comes from publicly available sources, and is current at the time of the app's release as of Jan. 5, 2011. The app, or at least the data, will be updated as time goes on.

We say "the data" because the app pings the developer's server to determine if the bar code refers to a company that supports SOPA. Note that to get the app to work, first you must install the free ZXing Barcode Scanner app. Then you point your Android device's camera at product barcodes to scan them, much as you might do with Amazon.com's Price Check app.

Statement of clarity from the developer:

"To all the folks asking why it requires other permissions- this app ONLY requires internet permissions. It does require the barcode scanner app made by the ZXing (google/open source) team to be installed on your phone, and nothing else --- this app does the image processing to decode the barcode.) Our app makes one request over the internet to our server to find if the product is a SOPA supporter. We do not access any other data."

What was strange is that in our own tests, we scanned a Diet Coke can, and were told "nay" on SOPA support. However, it's been reported that scanning Coca-Cola resulted in a "yes" result for SOPA support. Somehow we didn't believe that only the part of the Coca-Cola company that produces regular Coke supports SOPA.

We reached out to the developer for an answer, and were told there had been a bug in the search algorithm. He indicated it was fixed (and it was; a second scan of a Diet Coke can said yep, the company does support SOPA).

Additionally, he added that they will soon release an updated app that will allow users to choose from different boycotts. That sort of functionality was suggested by a reviewer, though we doubt it will be truly general purpose. Still, this could be an exciting improvement for an already interesting app.

So far the app has a 4.9 rating in the Android Market, but we wouldn't be surprised to see pro-SOPA reviewers try to hammer the rating down.

In addition, since the Android Market allows carriers to specify apps that they want excluded from the Market, we'd be interested in seeing if any carriers do so. That would be a clear indication of SOPA support, though.

SOPA will would require Internet service providers (ISPs) to block access to any website that the entertainment industry believes "engages in, enables or facilitates" copyright infringement. search engines would be required to remove those sites from their search results.

While content providers are all behind the bill, many oppose it, calling it "Internet Censorship," and a slippery slope to the "Great Firewall of America," a takeoff on the "Great Firewall of China," which that country uses to block content it does not want its citizens to see.

 

[nitroz]

Study Confirms: News Networks Owned By SOPA Supporters... Are Ignoring SOPA/PIPA | Techdirt

While the debates about SOPA/PIPA have been raging all over the internet, and appearing regularly in all sorts of mainstream newspapers, they still have been almost entirely absent from TV news. We've discussed this in the past, noting that the major TV news players are all owned by media conglomerates who have been major backers of SOPA/PIPA. There was some indication that cable news was starting to pay attention... but things have gone quiet since then (perhaps upper management sent out a memo...).

The folks over at Media Matters decided to check in on this and have confirmed that the big TV news players have almost entirely ignored it, despite the widespread controversy found elsewhere in the mainstream press:

As the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) makes its way through Congress, most major television news outlets -- MSNBC, Fox News, ABC, CBS, and NBC -- have ignored the bill during their evening broadcasts. One network, CNN, devoted a single evening segment to it.

The report does note that there have been articles online... but very few TV segments. It also discusses how much attention SOPA/PIPA is getting, concerning all the companies who have come out against it, the media coverage in the NY Times among other places, and the big GoDaddy flip-flop -- to highlight that this is a big story making waves.

Despite all of this, the response from American television news outlets has been to almost completely ignore the story during their evening programming. The lone exception was a segment on CNN's The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer in December, during which CNN parent company Time Warner's support for the legislation was not disclosed. (Though Fox News Channel has apparently not touched the story during evening programming, conservative/libertarian host Andrew Napolitano has run several segments vocally opposing SOPA on his program, which runs on the separate Fox Business Network.)

It's postulated that perhaps the issue is the fact that SOPA/PIPA don't fall along easily scripted left vs. right lines:

The fight over SOPA does not fit into the usual left vs. right narrative that occupies so much of the political horserace coverage with which TV news outlets fill their schedules. The cosponsors of SOPA come from both sides of the aisle. Likewise, the most vocal opponents of SOPA in Congress are an ideologically diverse bunch, including Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Ron Paul (R-TX) and Darrel Issa (R-CA).

Either that... or the corporate folks upstairs don't want to allow this to become an even bigger story.

Of course, as I was writing this up, Tim Cushing was writing up the same story (coordination, people, coordination!), with an alternate theory -- which makes sense too. So, everything below the line is his read on the situation: Tim Cushing's analysis: Gray areas seldom make compelling news, especially when there's no political angle to take. Beyond that, I think the mainstream media silence is also explained by the outdated thought process that still believes that the Internet Is Not Real.

First and foremost, the evening news is generally a broad overview of the days' happenings. Not only do they not have the time to delve into an issue that mainly affects an "ethereal" service like the web, but they also (ignoring any corporate bias for the sake of argument) have no interest in doing so. The cliche that "if it bleeds, it leads" likely eliminates a war that involves a bloodless dismantling of the internet. The internet is generally trotted out only as an example of how things are bad (online bullying, etc.) or how things are cute/weird (any crossover meme that can be easily brought up, discussed and dismissed forever in less than 60 seconds).

Even though many news teams invite you to follow them on Twitter or Facebook, the connection seems to go no further than that. The percentage of the population that still relies on the evening news to get them caught up on the world is unlikely to care about legislation that affects the internet.

In essence, the internet is still treated like some sort of fad infested with tech-y nerds and thus can be safely ignored when dealing with Real Issues on the nightly news. This attitude is pervasive, both within content companies and among our representatives. The gatekeepers pushing the legislation need the internet as much as it claims it needs them, but they want their own internet, one closer in spirit to The Village than the Wild West.

Our legislators are still amused by their own lack of internet prowess, indicating that they still believe the web to be some sort of "outlier" whose opinions can be easily dismissed. It's a cognitive gap, but it explains why the mainstream TV news so willingly ignores SOPA and the building momentum of its opposition: it's just the internet. It can be either humored or feared, but never respected.

 

[nitroz]

DailyTech - Obama Admin. Declares War on SOPA; SOPA Author Caught Stealing Work

While U.S. President Barack Obama and his advisors haven't always seen eye to eye with digital freedom advocates, they have joined forces with the advocacies on one critical issue. They are at last speaking out against the proposed Orwellian "Stop Online Piracy Act" (SOPA) (H.R. 3261) and its Senate counterpart the "PROTECT IP Act" (PIPA) (S.968).

I. White House Blasts Big Media's Anti-Internet Bill

The bills have many controversial provisions. Some of the provisions are controversial due to the outrageous approach they take with online businesses. For example, in a provision likened to an internet death penalty by DailyTech and other sites -- the bills would look to create a takedown system where any site found to be hosting user generated content pointing to infringing content (say a URL to a torrent) could be immediately taken down.

This would be a crippling blow to Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN), Google Inc. (GOOG), online news, and any other site that allows user-generated content, as a malicious user (e.g. a prankster or competitor) could intentionally plant an offending URL and then contact the regulators to take down the site for weeks at a time. The measure would essentially end all American online commerce, online searching, and online news if enforced.

Other measures of the bill are criticized for their heavy-handed approach. The bill would look to put members of the American proletariat in prison for rebroadcasting (the language is ambiguous about the criminality of watching) via streaming copyrighted content. An example of this would be if a sporting event was blacked out locally (this often occurs in professional sports like the NFL if tickets go unsold) and a friend from out-of-town broadcasts the game to you by streaming their view of the game (not blacked out, as it's not the local market).

Even though your friend is giving you access to content you have no easy way of legally accessing, your friend who sent you the stream is now going to prison if they get caught. America already imprisons more of its proletariat than any other nation -- including North Korea and Iran -- and spends an estimated $80B USD annually to keep up this record imprisonment. Thus such measures are at least somewhat controversial.

Prisoners
The U.S. already spends $80B USD in federal debt to imprison more of its citizens than any other nation in the world. Now it's looking to add more proles to the galleys.
[Source: David Sanders for The New York Times]

In a post on White House blog White House cyber-security czar Howard Schmidt and two other key officials echoed criticisms of firms like Google and Amazon, in questioning wasn't cyber equivalent of amputating a limb to combat an ingrown nail.

Writes Mr. Schmidt, "Any effort to combat online piracy must guard against the risk of online censorship of lawful activity and must not inhibit innovation by our dynamic businesses large and small."

Obama, tired
President Obama's advisors' decisions to publicly speak out against SOPA/PIPA have raised hopes that the President might veto the bill, preventing catastrophic damage to America's high-tech economy. [Image Source: Associated Press]

Despite nearly unanimous opposition from America's top online innovators -- Google, Amazon, Yahoo! Inc. (YHOO), Facebook, Twitter and eBay Inc. (EBAY) -- Congress people have vowed to ignore their economic leaders and public outcry and forge ahead with the Orwellian measures.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R- Tex.) who co-wrote SOPA, states, "It is not censorship to enforce the law against foreign thieves."

He claims that 19 million jobs and 60 percent of American exports are at stake in the war to protect intellectual property.

II. SOPA Author Caught Infringing, Feels Above the Law he Pushes on the Proles

Rep. Smith's comment seems slightly misleading, given that the bill contains many provisions that are equally punitive to American businesses and individuals as they are to foreign ones. And there's a strong irony in his hardline towards copyright infringement as the office of Rep. Smith was itself recently caught by the blog Vice stealing content.

Lamar Smith
Rep. Lamar Smith feels he's above the laws he's looking to subject his lowly proles to.
[Image Source: Lamar Smith]

While Rep. Smith's office has tried to keep this offense quiet, by offering a newer, cleaner version of the Representative's webpage, Vice was able to locate older version using web tools like the WayBack Engine.

Lamar Smith website
Rep. Smith infringes a hard working artist's work to promote his election campaign.
[Image Source: Lamar Smith]

It was found that the office of Rep. Smith had illegally used a photograph from artist DJ Schulte as a background, without proper citation (and hence without permission).

DJ Schulte photo
DJ Schulte is an artist who deserves credit for his work, but the office of SOPA author Rep. Lamar Smith stole the work without attribution. [Image Source: DJ Schulte]

States Mr. Schulte to Vice:

I switched my images from traditional copyright protection to be protected under the Creative Commons license a few years ago, which simply states that they can use my images as long as they attribute the image to me and do not use it for commercial purposes."

I do not see anywhere on the screen capture that you have provided that the image was attributed to the source (me). So my conclusion would be that Lamar Smith's organization did improperly use my image. So according to the SOPA bill, should it pass, maybe I could petition the court to take action against Lamar Smith for Congress.

(To be clear Vice and DailyTech can legally repost the image, as we are not reselling it and are properly citing the artist, unlike Rep. Smith.)

The offensive infringement isn't exactly surprising. Recent surveys of active torrents have revealed the offices of members of Congress downloading infringed content, including pornographic films.

Furthermore, SOPA/PIPA's big media backers aren't exactly foreign to the realm of hypocrisy themselves. Major record labels yearly claim access to scores of "unclaimed" independent works in the U.S. and abroad, thanks to favorable laws. Independent artists often find their work stolen by the major labels and are forced to navigate a maze of roadblocks designed to stymie them from recouping the profits the major labels are stealing through wanton infringement. It is estimated that such theft on behalf of major media labels accounts for tens, if not hundreds of millions in lost revenue annually for independent artists.

III. Big Media Looks to Collect on Their Congressional Bribes

The U.S. Recording Industry Association of America, a notorious copyright abuser known for suing dead people and other extreme measures, blasted the White House's opposition to the bills, stating, "[It is illegal for websites] to direct law-abiding consumers to unlawful and dangerous sites. Hyperbole, hysteria and hypotheticals cannot change the fact that stealing is wrong, costing jobs and must be contained."

Similarly the Motion Picture Association of America, another famous enforcement firm, states, "Protecting American jobs is important too, particularly in these difficult economic times for our nation."

These statements are parroted near verbatim by the U.S. Senate Chamber of Commerce, who comments, "Given the broad consensus that this issue needs to be addressed, it is time to come together and adopt strong legislation that ends the ability of foreign criminals to prey on innocent consumers and steal American jobs."

This Congressional echo of America's most notorious and abusive media copyright watchdogs is not terribly surprising. After all, media lobbyists paid approximately 10 percent of active U.S. Senators' total combined election costs, and donated generously to members of the U.S. House of Representatives, as well.

At the 2012 Consumer Electronics Show, Consumer Electronics Association President Gary Shapiro, an active technology advisor to federal policy makers, attacked these bribes, stating, "[SOPA is championed by] politicians who are proudly unfamiliar with how the internet works, but who are well familiar with favors from well-heeled copyright extremists."

It remains to be seen, amidst this sweeping bribery of public officials, if the Obama administration would truly be willing to veto a bill like SOPA/PIPA. The administration faces the challenge of trying to push back against an issue that enjoys broad bipartisan support on account of the sweeping bribery. But the administration must weigh the value of its big media benefactors against the value of its legacy -- after all, it could go down in history as the administration that killed the internet economy if PIPA/SOPA passes on its watch.

Most policy makers and critics of SOPA/PIPA agree -- infringement is wrong and needs to be stopped. But as the Obama administration and countless others are stated -- there are less self-destructive, reasonable approaches to fighting piracy. Such positive solutions stands in sharp contrast to the harsh totalitarian policies pushed by big media onto their paid employees, members of Congress.

IV. Who is Fighting For SOPA/PIPA

The U.S. Senators sponsored the PIPA bill:
Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.)
John Cornyn (R-Texas)
Chris Coons (D-Dela.).

The following U.S. Representatives sponsored the SOPA bill:
Lamar Smith (R-TX) [house.gov] *
John Conyers (D-MI) [house.gov]
Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) [house.gov]
Howard L. Berman (D-CA) [house.gov]
Tim Griffin (R-AR) [house.gov]
Elton Gallegly (R-CA) [house.gov]
Theodore E. Deutch (D-FL) [house.gov]
Steve Chabot (R-OH) [house.gov]
Dennis Ross (R-FL) [house.gov] *
Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) [house.gov]
Mary Bono Mack (R-CA) [house.gov]
Lee Terry (R-NE) [house.gov]
Adam B. Schiff (D-CA) [house.gov]
Mel Watt (D-NC) [house.gov]
John Carter (R-TX) [house.gov] *
Karen Bass (D-CA) [house.gov]
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) [house.gov]
Peter King (R-NY) [house.gov]
Mark E. Amodei (R-NV) [house.gov]
Tom Marino (R-PA) [house.gov]
Alan Nunnelee (R-MS) [house.gov]
John Barrow (D-GA) [house.gov]
Steve Scalise (R-LA) [house.gov] *
Ben Ray Luján (D-NM) [house.gov]
William L. Owens (D-NY) [house.gov]

 

[nitroz]

Red Tape - SOPA opponents gaining momentum; Wikipedia to join blackout

UPDATED Jan. 16, 3:15 ET -- Opponents of controversial federal anti-piracy legislation known as SOPA seem to be picking up steam. Supporters of the legislation in both houses of Congress appear have backed off, the Obama administration has expressed concerns with the legislation, and an Internet blackout slated for Wednesday is picking up supporters.

A House subcommittee was slated to prepare the Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA, for a vote later this month; the Senate had planned a vote on the companion bill, PIPA (The Protect IP Act,) even sooner. Now, it appears both votes will be delayed.

SOPA opponents are rallying around an effort to call attention to the legislation by convincing Web sites to "go dark" on Jan. 18, and display only a simple message of protest on a black background. On Monday, Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales announced that his website will go dark for 24 hours starting at midnight ET Tuesday, following the lead of other high-profile promised blackouts. Reddit.com will go black from 8 a.m.- 8 p.m. on Wednesday. The hacker group Anonymous also encouraged others to join in the 12-hour blackout, and garnered a lot of attention with its Twitter post using the hashtag #BlackoutSOPA.
advertisement

Meanwhile, several signs point to SOPA legislation hitting some serious speedbumps. On Saturday, a statement issued by White House cyberczar Howard Schmidt, and other administration technology officials, threw cold water on SOPA's anti-piracy efforts.

"Our analysis of the DNS filtering provisions in some proposed legislation suggests that they pose a real risk to cybersecurity and yet leave contraband goods and services accessible online," says the response, referring to SOPA's proposal to allow law enforcement officials to blacklist Web sites -- cut them off from U.S. users -- that allegedly encourage piracy. The response, posted at WhiteHouse.gov on Saturday, does not take a position on SOPA, but it cautioned lawmakers that the administration will opposed anti-piracy efforts that might increased censorship.

"Any effort to combat online piracy must guard against the risk of online censorship of lawful activity and must not inhibit innovation by our dynamic businesses large and small," the memo reads.

In Congress, supporters of the legislation have recently indicated they are open to changing their proposals.

Late Friday afternoon, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), said he planned tone down enforcement powers that would be granted by the proposed Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). A new version would not include the most controversial provision, which would have enabled federal authorities to "blacklist" domains that were alleged to be involved in distribution of pirated content, effectively cutting portions of the Web off from all U.S. users.

"After consultation with industry groups across the country, I feel we should remove Domain Name System blocking from the Stop Online Piracy Act so that the Committee can further examine the issues surrounding this provision," Smith, one of SOPA's chief backers, said in a statement. "We will continue to look for ways to ensure that foreign websites cannot sell and distribute illegal content to U.S. consumers."

The move comes after a similar step taken on Thursday by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), sponsor of the Senate version, PIPA. Leahy said complaints from "human rights groups, engineers, and others" had convinced him to change his thinking on the bill.

"I remain confident that the ISPs — including the cable industry, which is the largest association of ISPs — would not support the legislation if its enactment created the problems that opponents of this provision suggest. Nonetheless, this is in fact a highly technical issue, and I am prepared to recommend we give it more study before implementing it," he said in a statement on his website.
advertisement

"As I prepare a managers’ amendment to be considered during the floor debate, I will therefore propose that the positive and negative effects of this provision be studied before implemented, so that we can focus on the other important provisions in this bill, which are essential to protecting American intellectual property online, and the American jobs that are tied to intellectual property. I regret that law enforcement will not have this remedy available to it when websites operating overseas are stealing American property, threatening the safety and security of American consumers."

While Senate debate on PIPA is slated for later this month, advocacy group Public Knowledge said on Friday that it believed debate on SOPA was going to be postponed until February.

Either way, removal of DNS blacklisting provision is unlikely to satisfy critics of Congressional anti-piracy efforts. They find other provisions — such as the ability for the Justice Department to cut off payment processing for alleged "rogue" websites — to be nearly as problematic.

"The DNS filtering provisions represent only some of the fundamental flaws in PIPA," the Electronic Froniter Foundation said in a statement to Geek.com. "This bill, and its House counterpart, cannot be fixed — they must be killed."

Meanwhile, discussions about SOPA hung over the annual CES geek-fest, held this week in Las Vegas. At the trade show, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) talked up his legislative alternative to SOPA, the OPEN Act, or Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade Act. He also promised to hold hearings next week on the issue. (For more, see this story.)