SOPA

[mstaylor]

Has anyone heard of this legislation? I need to investigate it further but my understanding is it is a bill to stop the illegal downloading copyrighted material. To the best of my knowledge, this is already illegal, see the term copyright. The problem with this bill, again to the way it was explained to me, is any site posting copyrighted material or links to the same, can cause the shutdown of the site. Think about this board, links to MLB videos are posted regularly. This could cause U-E to be shut down. The bill supposedly goes as far as not just shutting violators down, but sites that have the potential to post copyrighted material.

I may not have all the information correct, so I will investigate further, but even if a portion is correct, they are way out of line. I understand that recording companies, movie producers, pro sports, game manufacturers and others wanting to protect their material and livelihood, but there needs to be some kind of process, not just a claim of infringement.

Any information guys?

[AZump78]

Yes-this is a BAD (and frankly, scary) bill. Here is a good synopsis for those interested:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2075314/Cyber-security-create-federal-big-brother-govern-internet-fearful-experts-warn.html

Very broad authority and very "Big Brother"-ish as to what defines "infringing". This bill is almost like something you would see in China.

Not so sure it would be a problem with U-E in your example as MLB seems to encourage linking or embedding their videos elsewhere (drives traffic and increases ad revenue not to mention increased brand exposure). BUT-wrap your head around this example:

Take my avatar for example. Obviously copyrighted material. Me using it is not really harmful in any logical way. This bill could conceivably allow someone to complain I was infringing on a copyright by using this imago w/o permission, and have the gov't shut the whole site down. All without investigation, warning, etc.

Would it happen? Doubtful. But the bill is so vague that Warren won't feel protected from it NOT happening. Thus this law is Bad Bad Bad...

[mstaylor]

All the major sports,MLB,NFL,NBA were listed as being supporters of the bill.

[AZump78]

All the major sports,MLB,NFL,NBA were listed as being supporters of the bill.

No suprise-as the real intent of the bill is to protect corporate interests and stifle technology that might threaten the bottom line.

For MLB, it would be to allow the Feds to easily shut down sites that broadcast games (including services like Slingbox), not so much the clips we all enjoy on U-E. But that's not to say they couldn't!

Here is a good commentary/explanation on SOPA and the Protecting IP Act (the Senate version) for anyone interested:

http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=US#/watch?v=JhwuXNv8fJM

[Umpire in Chief]

MLB is probably the most vigorous about protecting their copyrights. They get Youtube to remove things all the time.

As for the law and U-E I'm not terribly worried. I think they will still have to file a DCMA complaint before taking real legal action.

[SAB_UIC_TX]

I have a friend in the television business, he works for the parent company that owns A&E, Lifetime, etc. He and I talked about this a year or two ago. He's the guy responsilbe for negotiating licensing agreement for shows like Mad Men for example. They issue is people putting up full episodes on youtube and other places that stream material. All of that is copyrighted material and they defend it fiercely. They don't have a problem with showing clips of episodes but not the full episode. This may be a bit off on the original post but I do know ther is a push to curb unauthorized use of copyrighted materials. It will all come down to just how fiercely people want to defend their copyright, which they have the right to do today so why do we need to have legislation for a law already on the books.

[AZump78]

Yea pirating full episodes is a problem but this bill is the equivalent of a nuclear bomb when perhaps they a strategic air strike would get the job done.

[mstaylor]

I fully understand and agree that they have the right to defend their material. However, I believe it is currently illegal to use copyrighted material and the additional law isn't necessary. Let's use Youtube as an example. Again I will have to do more digging but this my understanding. I have pirated copy of a episode of Sons of Guns. I put it up on Youtube. Youtube has no say in what I post, it has conduct terms which can get me kicked off, but I can put it up. The network gets a DCMA and has it pulled down and they can go after the person that posted it. What the new law wants is to be able to go after Youtube. Now if the site that hosts the material is set up with the purpose of sharing or selling copyrighted material then they need to be gone after, but if they just accept clips and on occasion a knucklehead breaks the rules they shouldn't be the bad guy.

[mstaylor]

Yea pirating full episodes is a problem but this bill is the equivalent of a nuclear bomb when perhaps they a strategic air strike would get the job done.

Very well said, sites like Youtube and others like it need to be searched regularly for violations but if they aren't soliciting or encouraging violations then they aren't the problem.

[SAB_UIC_TX]

The companies that defend their copyrights and brand regularly look over Youtube and the like to ensure they are protected. Youtube also as taken a part in this as well trying to keep material off their site so they can keep it up and going.

[AZump78]

I am certainly not going to try and change your mind on this bill, and respect your point of view. I can only encourage others to do some reading on both sides of the issue and determine for themselves whether they think SOPA is the proper solution.

As far as youtube goes, this bill is a huge problem for them specifically as it removes the "Safe Harbor" provision that has kept them from being held liable for copyrighted content that a user uploads. Under SOPA (which would remove the Safe Harbor provisions), youtube could be subject to total site shutdown by our federal government if an individual youtube user uploaded content that is copyrighted.

[Umpire in Chief]

First I don't want anybody to think YouTube is a bad guy here, because of all social media sites they probably do the best in scrubbing illegal content. But there are dozens if not hundreds or even thousands of sites which aren't interested in others copyrights and will not respont to a DCMA notice. These are who this law targets. YouTube is just a familiar example. But there are social media sites who are loaded will illegal content.

IMO the safe harbor and DCMA are the correct way to handle this. Responsible people/ companies will immediately reply to the request. I do believe there need to be stiffer penalties to those who don't. But you need to give people the opportunity to do the right thing before getting them shut down and that is why the DCMA notices work.

[mstaylor]

First I don't want anybody to think YouTube is a bad guy here, because of all social media sites they probably do the best in scrubbing illegal content. But there are dozens if not hundreds or even thousands of sites which aren't interested in others copyrights and will not respont to a DCMA notice. These are who this law targets. YouTube is just a familiar example. But there are social media sites who are loaded will illegal content.

IMO the safe harbor and DCMA are the correct way to handle this. Responsible people/ companies will immediately reply to the request. I do believe there need to be stiffer penalties to those who don't. But you need to give people the opportunity to do the right thing before getting them shut down and that is why the DCMA notices work.

That is kind of my point, we have the solutions in place, no need for further legislation. If a site is a repeat offender or refuses to respond to a DCMA, then go after them aggressively. The problem as I see it is it is a type of no tolerance policy. Those that have seen me post over the years know how I oppose anything that takes thinking out of the equation, or unfairly hampers the free market. I work in the entertainment business so I am well aware of the need to protect the copyrights of both physical and intellectual property.

[mstaylor]

http://judiciary.house.gov/issues/issues_RogueWebsites.html