dagblog - Comments for "SOPA, SoCal, So What?"

This has been extremely

DF — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 19:37:05 +0000

In reply to Thanks for the info. I guess

This has been extremely informative for me. I've worked in the industry for so long that it's easy to forget that not everyone knows how this stuff works. Perhaps Dag needs a SOPA/PROTECT-IP primer. I know we've got a couple of other geeks here that could weigh in.

Thanks for the info. I guess

Michael Maiello — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 19:30:06 +0000

In reply to Also, GoDaddy might not get

Thanks for the info. I guess you can tell that I'm a freeloader without his own site. Guess that's why I call Dag home. And, yes, you're right... the tech industry is going to have to better organize to defend itself.

Also, GoDaddy might not get

DF — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 19:27:16 +0000

In reply to I'm down with everything

Also, GoDaddy might not get sued for you, but they sure as hell turned on a dime with respect for SOPA when the 'net started a mass exodus.

This is far too reductive.

DF — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 19:23:14 +0000

In reply to I'm down with everything

This is far too reductive. First of all, no one is hosting with their ISP. Web sites are hosted in data centers, which are increasingly cloud-based, distributed endeavors. How big are the entities in question?

Assume I'm running a site with a copyright claim against it. I probably have it hosted with someone and maybe have my domain name registered with them, maybe not. "Taking the site down" might involve getting my name host to stop hosting my DNS, but that only makes the site difficult to access. This was attempted with the Pirate Bay. The numerical IP address was rapidly distributed through other sites.

Or it might involve getting my actual host, in other words the entity actually responsible for running the hardware and software that powers my site, to remove the site from their servers. If I'm a much bigger player than the the copyright claimant, what is the incentive for hosting entities to comply with a nastygram? This should be a pure cost-benefit analysis, not a foregone conclusion. If you follow EFF, you know that disputes like this happen all the time. It is simply not the case that web sites fold every time a lawyer mails a letter.

Now think about the big boys like Google and Facebook. They don't need hosting companies. They are hosting companies (this is increasingly true of Google and Amazon). They have massive data centers. Of course, they sometimes contract with third-parties to diversify network presence, but that's really immaterial here. There is no way you can get a host to take them down. Who wouldn't clamor for their business, no matter the legal threats? Surely Google and Facebook are willing to protect their own interests in the legal process and have the resources to do it.

This is what SOPA seeks to do. They want to be able to threaten entities like Google with direct, extra-judicial Federal action if Google does something like, say, make it easy to find a torrent. This is completely and utterly different then the present DMCA regime. If it wasn't, there would be no reason to pass the bill and no reason to care.

I'm down with everything

Michael Maiello — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 18:10:04 +0000

In reply to It's not just people that

I'm down with everything you're saying. I just wonder to what extent this changes the current playing field, not in terms of legality but in terms of practicality. Like, if a big company writes to your ISP and says, "make that user take that site down," the ISP is not going to back you up, even if you're right. Nobody's going to get sued for you.

It's not just people that

DF — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 16:24:00 +0000

In reply to If it passes with bipartisan

It's not just people that write on the Internet or the lack of due process. Throwing prior restraint out the window only scratches the surface. If you didn't check it out, I highly recommend reading Laurence Tribe's legis memo that I linked above. It's quite accessible. To briefly summarize why these bills are actually a problem for the industry as a whole, Tribe points out that the bill potentially undermines the entire "web 2.0" business model, which relies heavily on user created content.

SOPA makes web site operators entirely responsible for all content, even user generated content, even on mere "portions" of a web site (say, a forum that isn't even the main content of the site). This has potentially devastating implications for all of the heavy hitters - Facebook, Twitter, Google, Reddit.. and even sites like Dag.

Say a Dag user plagiarizes some content, unbeknownst to our benevolent hosts. The copyright owner notices, contacts legal and out the nastygrams go. Goodbye, Dag.

I'd like to find better numbers, but these are somewhat illuminating: here are the Fortune 500 lists for the most profitable industries in the US in 2008 and 2009. The key thing to notice is that entertainment registers in the top 10 during 2008, clocking a respectable 12.4% profit margin. In 2009, it was -%10.

The entertainment industry says we have to ruin the Internet to kill piracy to save their industry. Of course, they said the same thing about home taping. And piracy didn't just suddenly start in 2009. Their prescription will have a tremendous impact one of the few growing industries in the US. The tech sector has been able to thrive throughout the downturn.

We're on pace to return to full employment sometime by the end of the decade - assuming nothing else goes wrong between now and then. Since Congress won't do anything about that, it's nice to see that they'll cross the aisle and put aside their differences to protect old Hollywood money and kick a young, vibrant industry in the nuts.

Methinks it's high time for Silicon Valley's boy billionaires to turn on the lobbying spigot.

NP. To me, this is really a

DF — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 15:56:14 +0000

In reply to Thanks DF, I haven't been a

NP. To me, this is really a story about an older, more politically connected and entrenched industry versus a younger, less connected industry. Congress is also full of rich old-timers that don't get the 'net - series of tubes and all that. That doesn't help the cause either.

At the core though, it's about entertainment failing to adapt their business models to new technology and seeking to protect their interests using political power instead of successfully innovating and winning in the marketplace.

Maybe if we keep it up, our economy can soon be based on nothing but farcical financial fictions and loquacious lawyering.

If it passes with bipartisan

Michael Maiello — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 13:46:40 +0000

In reply to SOPA, SoCal, So What?

If it passes with bipartisan support, I can't see Obama not signing it. Yes, it'll tick off people who write on the Internet, but I don't where most people get too worked up over this. My own opposition certainly isn't rooted in stopping content creators from enforcing copyrights. It's about the lack of due process for those accused. But, practically speaking, unless you own your own servers, the truth is that Hollywood or a big publishing company can already shut you down by going to your server provider. Let's face it. Godaddy is not going to fight a lawsuit for you against a deep pocketed plaintiff, even if you're right. This law absurdly lets them forego even the threat of a lawsuit and a cease and desist letter. But it doesn't seem to change the playing field that much.

Thanks DF, I haven't been a

tmccarthy0 — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 11:23:06 +0000

In reply to SOPA, SoCal, So What?

Thanks DF, I haven't been a big follower of this, although my boys are of course against it, (both nerds). Thanks for the info.