# SOPA and PIPA - This could be bad for LumberJocks



## North40 (Oct 17, 2007)

I usually stay away from political stuff outside of specifically political forums, but …

HR3261 (SOPA) and S968 (PIPA), if enacted, have the potential to put an end to LJ in the U.S.. I've been reading around about this legislation, and Craigslist has a great summary of the information. The original intent of the legislation was to combat piracy, especially by entities outside of U.S. jurisdiction. But the wording is so vague, a corporation would be able to demand the ability to take down any web site that affects their profits, without due process or judicial oversight.

LJ is full of handmade versions of things available for purchase in a store … tables, pens, entertainment centers, cutting boards, jigs, and the list goes on and on. A manufacturer of any of those items could claim that the handmade item on LJ affects their profits (you didn't buy it from them, and now someone else might make their own, too), and demand that the page … and possibly the entire site … be blocked or taken down.

If you are in the U.S., I encourage you to find out more about these bills (don't just take my word for it) and contact your legislators to let them know how you would like them to vote.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Peter,
Do me a favor and (edit) re-title the Heading to include "SOPA" and "PIPA" as I think this is a VERY important topic and worthy of extended discussion. I have appointments this morning but do want to return later and pitch in on this topic.
Michael


----------



## ShaneA (Apr 15, 2011)

Thanks for the info. I had seen this on CL too.


----------



## richgreer (Dec 25, 2009)

I also resist participating in the political topics that appear on this site. Yet, I make an exception on this issue. I've read enough to know that SOPA and PIPA are bad policy. I understand the need for some restriction on piracy, but these 2 bills overreach. It's a result of manufacturers having a voice in congress (i.e. large campaign contributions) and hobbyist, like us, not having a voice.


----------



## North40 (Oct 17, 2007)

@*HorizontalMike* - edited! Thanks for the suggestion.


----------



## 280305 (Sep 28, 2008)

I think that Wikipedia's announced protest is an interesting move:
English Wikipedia anti-SOPA blackout


----------



## Tikka (May 14, 2007)

OK I am not from the USA, but potentially this affects everybody in the world.

I understand the essence of why the big corporations want to stop piracy - Do not agree with the methodology they are using though.

With regard to this bill, maybe some of the pen makers (for example) should get the commercial sites taken down as they are reducing there own sales - after all it was the humble woodworkers who came up with the idea before the commercial boys - they pirated/stole the ideas from us.

They may be able to block a site (Big Brother) in the USA, but if that site is hosted outside the USA, surely they can do nothing about taking the site down if it hosted in another country, unless that country is intending to apease the power and might of the USA.

I just hope that common sense prevails and the video/movie companies (who are probably force behind this) are forced to make there Movies/DVDs non pirateable, rather than taking the easy option - After all if the P2P sites are taken down, the pirates will always find another way the pirate and distribute information, after all they did with 8mm, then VHS/Beta, then CD, then DVD, then the internet and they will with whatever media method they are still to discover.


----------



## cmaxnavy (Dec 23, 2007)

This is important because it effects basic individual freedoms! Aside from the threat of LJ losing access to markets, the more important issue is 'who picks winners and losers?' This is the question of our time. Political power is concentrating in the hands of a few with access to state owned security (read police), regardless of party affiliation, and our new overlords are no longer consulting the many (you and me) as was resolved in a declaration of Independence and Constitution some 236 years ago. Instead of We The People loan our power to a limited government, today we have We The People scratching our heads and asking, "why is my voice not being heard." Answer: Because our overlords (read: political class) is not listening! They have no intent, beyond casual appearance, to listen to your complaints. Get it?

For Tony, above, who said, "...I just hope that common sense prevails…" Hope is not much of an operational plan and, in fact, hopeful thinking is what most people are doing. It lacks action and is exactly what our politicians are expecting. We must change our approach, stop hoping and start acting. Short of action, you will see more of the same until the noose closes around the neck of personal freedoms.


----------



## Eric_S (Aug 26, 2009)

SOPA been shelved indefinitely until its reworked but PIPA is still on.


----------



## Brad_Nailor (Jul 26, 2007)

PIPA is hot..


----------



## StumpyNubs (Sep 25, 2010)

I don't like the rosy cheeks… too much make-up!

I have heard that this law may be devastating to video sites like You-tube. Imagine a world where woodworking video podcasts (I'm not just talking about mine, I also enjoy watching several here on LJ's) that rely on YouTube hosting, are gone!

-Jim; aka "Stumpy Nubs" 
(The greatest woodworking show since the invention of wood is now online!)


----------



## KnickKnack (Aug 20, 2008)

Maybe I'm being thick - not uncommon.
I've just read S968 (PIPA) and, whilst I don't necessarily agree with what it says, it seems to me it's very much (that is to say, completely) targeted at copyright violations.
Perhaps someone could point me at the bit of the proposed legislation that would make the LJ site a potential target?
Thanks


----------



## IrreverentJack (Aug 13, 2010)

Peter, Thank you for this post. It seems the big money in this issue is trying to bury us in BS. Am I correct in thinking the companies that own the news media are in favor of this legislation? The only discussion of it I have heard on mainstream media was on Chris Hayes' UP. That discussion included a rude lawyer in favor who seems to have lied his ass off . What is confusing is who is opposed, and who is in favor of these bills politically. Is it just a simple matter to track down who got big campaign contributions? We really need to pay attention here. -Jack


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Like most bills the INTENT is good, but how it has been used/twisted for gain always gets ugly.

The electronic Frontier Foundation has a lot of good information as well as a "Hall Of Shame" detailing how egregious claims can be forcing site takedowns.
https://www.eff.org/takedowns


----------



## 280305 (Sep 28, 2008)

*KnickKnack *-

This letter to congress outlines some of the concerns:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/12/internet-inventors-warn-against-sopa-and-pipa


----------



## dkirtley (Mar 11, 2010)

Post a link to a copyrighted pic, design, or just about anything else and you are in trouble. This goes far beyond what was even allowed with DMCA takedown notices.

About the only ones that would have any hope of not being bullied are those who already have their own legal army in place and very deep pockets.


----------



## DLCW (Feb 18, 2011)

Charles - you make a great point for everyone in America to start adopting the

"vote for challengers, not incumbents"

position I'm taking in local state and federal elections. The only way to get the elite criminals out of power is to vote them out en-mass. Show a solidarity that the current group of corrupt criminals has to be fired and the new people elected have one chance to get it right or they're out.

No party affiliation with this plan - vote your preferred party. Just get the current numb-nuts out of office and send a message that 300,000,000 is a lot more powerful then them.

This could even send a message to corporations, PACS and unions that they will have to start answering to WE THE PEOPLE when they discover that all the invested money in corrupt incumbents goes to waste when their puppet gets voted out of office.


----------



## miles125 (Jun 8, 2007)

""Just get the current numb-nuts out of office and send a message that 300,000,000 is a lot more powerful then them."" 
Don

Ummm…except it is "We The 300,000,000 People" that put them there. The only reason we have a politician problem is because we have a much more troubling citizen problem. Welcome to post Christian America.

About this law…

If you think piracy is a problem, just wait until you see the marketplace that is "govenment fixed" so piracy isn't a problem.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Good Plan Don, challenge is that the long term incumbent usually/often running unopposed in the primaries - so the only way to get rid of them is to have them retire or vote in the opposite party. 
For most that becomes a bridge too far - 
Can you imagine the hard core progressives in the SanFran area voting Republican in order to oust Pelosi?
Or here in Kansas - going blue Dem to get rid of senator Pat Roberts.
The "party line incumbent" has the support of the national organizations. We saw that for primary challengers last time that when "Their Guy" didn't get in then the RNC would not back the candidate.

Tough to fight a rigged system


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Tony SAID: "They may be able to block a site (Big Brother) in the USA, but if that site is hosted outside the USA, *surely they can do nothing about taking the site down if it hosted in another country*, unless that country is intending to apease the power and might of the USA."

From the way I understand it, these unilateral mega-corps could block users FROM ACCESSING these websites. In other words they would NOT show up on web-searchs and the like. You would NOT even know what you are missing… poof! gone… And all this could happen even IF that non-US site remained active because its very presence would be hidden.

Scary stuff.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Take for example, David's image of Pipa Middleton. If that image were copyrighted and David did NOT have permission to use that image, THE ENTIRE LUMBERJOCKS WEBSITE COULD BE BLOCKED FROM USERS TO ACCESS! Yes for that ONE little slip, just because the BIG Corps got a personal law written just for themselves to do just that without any checks and balances.

BTW, David is fine with that image, as far as I know. But THAT is just the problem. Who knows? And if some corporate big wig got it wrong and just wanted to screw with Lumberjocks, they could do it anyway, since no accountability is involved that could stop the abuse by these big corps.


----------



## KnickKnack (Aug 20, 2008)

Thanks to DrDirt and ChuckV for those references.
They are, alas, just people complaining.
I couldn't find a single reference or citation of the legislation in question in there.

David Kirtley: "Post a link to a copyrighted pic, design, or just about anything else and you are in trouble. This goes far beyond what was even allowed with DMCA takedown notices."

I can't for the life of me find anything in PIPA (I haven't read SOPA - I thought that was on hold) that indicates that that is the case - *please* - which part of the legislation actually *says* that if, for example, I were to post a copyrighted pic here on LJ, that there could be trouble for the owners of LJ?


----------



## 280305 (Sep 28, 2008)

Some people might be interested in looking at (or even commenting on and participating in the development of) the alternative draft legislation, *OPEN: Online Protection & ENforcement of Digital Trade Act*:
http://keepthewebopen.com


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Knickknack,
Where did the enabling legislation for "red-light cameras" in all states *ever* stipulate that law enforcement would be allowed in monitoring of private citizens' movements on an at-will basis? The point that is trying to be made is that without specific RESTRICTIONS OF USE, the new law would be ripe for abuse by the Big Corps who have already shown their abusive bullying tactics of private citizens with regards to streaming video and music.


----------



## BentheViking (May 19, 2011)

I too try to stay away from political stuff but did see something about SOPA and PIPA on Craigslist. Wasn't sure if it was some sort of pop up or something so didn't click on it. Glad to finally be able to read about it. Sounds like it could suck, but it also seems like this kinda stuff pops up from time to time and then nothing ever ends up happening with it that actually effects us.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

*PIPA's January 24th Vote and How a Filibuster Works*

This is the reason to communicate with your elected officials NOW. Time is of the essence.


----------



## Bertha (Jan 10, 2011)

www.google.com has a petition link up today. Wikipedia is blacked out. You can link to your local representative. This is very dangerous stuff, whether you feel that the government should be bigger or smaller.


----------



## Howie (May 25, 2010)

The first problem with this is having congress involved. Everytime they get involved something gets screwed up bad.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Here is an add-on for Mozilla FireFox that will redirect your URL search to an alternative mirror-site IF Homeland Security decides to start blocking your access to selective websites.

Read more about his tool here.


----------



## Bertha (Jan 10, 2011)

^could actually happen, Mike. Welcome to China.


----------



## North40 (Oct 17, 2007)

*KnickKnack* has asked a couple of times for actual language that is a problem…

First, failure to specifically state what constitutes a legitimate website leaves it open to interpretation of the enforcement entity. This is why there are so many IRS abuses - they are tasked with enforcing laws that are alternately vague and incomprehensible, so the law is whatever the agent decides it is.

How about this, using the example of lumberjocks.com: 
Section 3.a.2: LJ is a nondomesitc website, so it's subject to enforcement without most of the bother of due process
Section 3.b: Without that due process, an injuction can be entered against LJ (forcing domain registrars to hide it) if it is targeted at US users (most LJ members are in the US) and "harms" a US intellectual rights holder (we know how broadly "harm" can be defined).
... so, if XYZ tool company has the patent on a widget-making jig, and I post a jig that also makes widgets (even if it's functionally different from XYZ's tool), it could be argued that LJ is providing a service that helps people make their own jig (anyone who reads my post), allowing them to avoid purchasing XYZ's jig, thereby harming XYZ financially. Copyright law is even broader than patent law, so posting a photo could be considered harm to the copyright holder and result in blocking of a website.


----------



## KnickKnack (Aug 20, 2008)

Thanks to Peter Oxley..
...but 3.a.2 (I presume we're in PIPA here) says, and I quote…

"(2) IN REM- If through due diligence the Attorney General is unable to find a person described in subparagraphs (A) or (B) of paragraph (1), or no such person found has an address within a judicial district of the United States, the Attorney General may commence an in rem action against a nondomestic domain name used by an Internet site dedicated to infringing activities."

Surely the key phrase here is *used by an Internet site dedicated to infringing activities*

This is defined in 2.7 - that's longer than I'd care to quote here, but I personally can't see how, even with the widest of possible interpretations, LJ is, in any shape sense or form, *dedicated to infringing activities*.
In fact, no, I think it's important to quote the paragraph so we can read what it actualy says - I've read *so* many things all over the internet about how bad this, and, Mr Oxleys is the *first* time I've ever seen anyone quote the actual legislation…

(7) the term 'Internet site dedicated to infringing activities' means an Internet site that-

(A) has no significant use other than engaging in, enabling, or facilitating the-

(i) reproduction, distribution, or public performance of copyrighted works, in complete or substantially complete form, in a manner that constitutes copyright infringement undersection 501 of title 17, United States Code;

(ii) violation ofsection 1201 of title 17, United States Code; or

(iii) sale, distribution, or promotion of goods, services, or materials bearing a counterfeit mark, as that term is defined in section 34(d) of the Lanham Act; or

(B) is designed, operated, or marketed by its operator or persons operating in concert with the operator, and facts or circumstances suggest is used, primarily as a means for engaging in, enabling, or facilitating the activities described under clauses (i), (ii), or (iii) of subparagraph (A);

I can see that words like "significant" etc are open to interpretation.
But it also seems to me that there are sites obviously way out of that grey zone - thepiratebay, for example, is obviously well above it, in the red zone, if you will. And, equally obviously, it seems to me, LJ is well below that line - in the green zone.


----------



## Bertha (Jan 10, 2011)

^Knick Knack, I generally agree with you but I'm not an attorney. If I were, the range of interpretations might be considerably wider. There is certainly precedent for malicious interpretation. In fact, this entire legislation could be predominantly aimed at The Pirate Bay, a site proudly dedicated to infriging activities (even literally, lol). There are other torrent sites, but TPB is certainly the most vocal. I hope Knick Knack is right but the stakes are quite high.


----------



## dkirtley (Mar 11, 2010)

When I read the bills, they don't sound that bad in themselves (for the most part). The thing that makes me have the knee-jerk reaction to it is how this has been used in the past. It specifically bothers me when well established rights that I have are taken away, including: Fair Use, First Sale Doctrine, and Expiration of Copyright into the Public Domain.

Try to take a picture in a public space and be guilty of copyright infringement because of the Cloud Gate sculpture in Chicago's Millennium Park. This one example of the violation of Fair Use. There are many more examples where copyright claims have overruled Fair Use (or at least tried).

I am also offended by the the "prohibiting the circumvention of technological measures that control access to or protect a copyrighted work" because this includes the ability to keep you from accessing things that you bought. This goes totally against the "First Sale Doctrine" which gives you specific rights to items that you purchase. This includes jailbreaking phones that you own, installing other operating systems on computer equipment that you personally own as examples. It has even been tried to be used against selling used movies, music, and books.

Copyright was conceived as a protection of intellectual property for the creator. The whole concept of copyright was the exchange of protection for a set time period for intellectual property and in return it being given to the Public Domain once the term expired. Once corporations were defined as having rights and an infinite lifetime, the expiration of copyright disappeared.

The entire copyright system is broken. Just putting garbage like this on the public is not going to fix it.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

A challenge is the application.
For example the NPR case that an ad used audio from their show to make thier point was required to be taken down from You tube 1 week before a vote.

What you have is a "Strategic" activity - to silence dissent leading up to elections and ballot initiatives. 
You claim infringement…which requires an IMMEDIATE take down while a determination is made.
Much like how the Chinese control Google.

Then Months LATER there is a ruling whether there was really NO violation of the law …but the ruling is no irrelevant as the actual vote was 5 months earlier.


----------



## North40 (Oct 17, 2007)

Ok, I have to say that phrases like "enabling or facilitating" and "facts or circumstances suggest" scare the pants off of me. If I sell fertilizer, do "circumstances suggest" that I am "enabling or facilitating" the manufacture of a bomb? Jeez, that language means whatever you want it to mean!

I'm not a lawyer, and my eyes glaze over after a few minutes of reading legal-ese, but one thing that indicates to me how scary this is … there are companies which are big enough to have legal departments (where, presumably, there are lawyers who understand how they would use this law) already stating that they intend to bring complaints against eBay, Craigslist, and Costco if this is enacted. Clearly, they are seeing a possible interpretation that is very different from the stated purpose of this legislation.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Peter, IMO your interpretation is very astute and scary to the bone if one has ANY understanding of what other things have already transpired in snuffing out the the small time individual.


----------



## DLCW (Feb 18, 2011)

DrDirt,

You are right about deeply encamped numb-nuts being hard to get out of office because no one runs against them. That's where taking the stance to vote for the challenger could work. When people with a desire to serve start seeing incumbents get knocked off their pedestals because the people are tired of them, more challengers will see that there really is a chance to run against entrenched numb-nuts. Also, the idea is not to advocate or try and get people to vote outside their party. I encourage people to vote within their preferred party, but vote for challengers instead of the entrenched.

miles125,

You are right about "We the People" put the current group of thugs in office. It is an uneducated, dumbed down society that has helped to perpetuate the problem. I think there are still enough educated, intelligent people left (that have not been turned into drones by the government) to help turn the problem around. But it has to be an effort that the educated, that are still left in the country, start pushing for. I try to educate the dumped-down by presenting them with facts that they can understand instead of the bull$#*& spewed forth by incumbents and their media cohorts. It is up to "We the Intelligent" to help the misinformed to be properly informed about the issues and not just what some corporation, PAC or union and their bought and paid for politicians want you to know.

This is where the Internet can be such a powerful tool that we could use to move this process along.


----------



## greasemonkeyredneck (Aug 14, 2010)

I have spent the last thirty minutes trying to find some information that I read just two days ago, but it has been taken down and I can't find it. 
I didn't want to say anything without being able to link to the actual information, but since I now can't, please allow me some leaway while I bring it up anyway.

Several big companies who are supporter of this bill compiled lists of websites that they planned on going after if these, or either of these, laws were passed.

The lists were ridiculous. Targeted websites included such well known sites suchs as google, Etsy, You Tube, Amazon, Facebook, Hulu, among many other shocking inclusions for such a list that I can't remember.

I am off now to try and find that information. I think it is an important issue and worth some extra time for me to try and fin it for you. Please, anyone who has the time, call your congressmen and make sure they know that they have one more vote they can not count on if they vote for this law. 
The problem is not the legislation itself, but the vagueness of its wording. If certain big name campaign contributors get their way with this law, and you know they will if there is a way for them to legally do so (even if it's around a loophole), the U.S. will soon start seeing such censorship on the level of China's policies towards the internet.


----------



## muleskinner (Sep 24, 2011)

At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, this is a pretty good distillation of SOPA/PIPA. And of course, this comment could be grounds to take down LJ.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Yeah well, it happens to be my own damned Representative, Lamar Smith who introduced SOPA in the first place. Please, those in other states also call this one Representative as well.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

This is a nice explanation (for real) of the process to date


----------



## Tikka (May 14, 2007)

*Muleskinner* Thanks for the "distillation" - it was excelent - the person who did this deserves an Oscar them selves.


----------



## greasemonkeyredneck (Aug 14, 2010)

I cannot find the exact list I read the other day.

However, here is one article about Monster Cable, one of the supporters of this bill, who labels such sites as Craiglist, and others, as "rogue sites" because people resell their used cables, preventing them from buying new cables from Monster Cable. I think this is rediculous. So it comes down to Monster Cable thinking that we should not recycle old products such as (still usable) cables, but instead buy more from them.

Here, on the Craiglist article about these bills, it is interesting to me who supports this bill and who doesn't.
Supporters:
RIAA, MPAA, News Corp, TimeWarner, Walmart, Nike, Tiffany, Chanel, Rolex, Sony, Juicy Couture, Ralph Lauren, VISA, Mastercard, Comcast, ABC, Dow Chemical, Monster Cable, Teamsters, Rupert Murdoch, Lamar Smith (R-TX), John Conyers (D-MI)
Opponents:
Google, Yahoo, Wikipedia, craigslist, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, eBay, AOL, Mozilla, Reddit, Tumblr, Etsy, Zynga, EFF, ACLU, Human Rights Watch, Darrell Issa (R-CA), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Ron Paul (R-TX)

Here is fifteen pages of FAQs about these two bills. Right there on page one, where Jim Hood, the attorney general of my home state of Mississippi, likens "rogue site" to child porn, well that hits home with me. Being a resident of Mississippi, don't even get me started on Jim Hood. We'd be here till next Friday. Jim Hood doesn't give a damned what the people of Mississippi, or America want. He goes about his merry way with his own personal agenda. Money is the way to get this guy on the side of anything. I don't have no idea how this guy is still in public view. In my opinion he is a black eye on the entire state of Mississippi.

This webpage is some interesting material to me as well. It is an article from the Motion Picture Association of America, a supporter of these laws. It talks about Google's keeping money from illegal ads. You have to follow the links on that page to get an understanding of the situation with that one. However, in the second "point" they make on that page, they suggest that after google took down these ads they're talking about, then they should have "done the right thing" and given any moneys form them to law enforement. 
I am in no way a huge supprter of google. I hate that company and most of their practices. However, they have been successful at something called business. What we have here is a supporter of these laws calling out an opponent of the laws for not doing something simply because it's "the right thing" regardless of typical business practices. Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black?

This is starting to look as bad as current political parties in America. All have taken a side and could care less what the American people want. So, like I stated earlier, we must call our legislatures and make damned well sure they know where we stand and that we won't accept anything less to the point of remembering it all in the voting booth.

.

.

.

NOW!
Since I do believe in playing the devil's advocate in analyzing anything so that I can stay unbiased in making descisions, here is a website by he United States House House of Representatives that addresses the SOPA act and a lot of the controvery around it. 
It also is some interesting reading if you're willing to research a lot of what is stated. If you are not willing to research it, well then, it is a propoganda campaign that will sway you in support of the proposed law.


----------



## Bertha (Jan 10, 2011)

SOPA losing steam. Good to see.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Well, at least Lamar Smith got HIS up-N-comin's:

http://current.com/shows/countdown/videos/worst-persons-bryan-fischer-rush-limbaugh-and-lamar-smith


----------



## 280305 (Sep 28, 2008)

What a relief that the bills have been indefinitely postponed.

Look what I sketched this morning:










Now you know what the "V" in "ChuckV" stands for.


----------



## Bertha (Jan 10, 2011)

^lol


----------



## Brad_Nailor (Jul 26, 2007)

Hey..that's that there..moaning Liza?


----------



## renners (Apr 9, 2010)

The Bills have been indefinitely postponed??? So I'll get to see "Spartacus : Vengeance" after all? WooHoo!!


----------

