The Rebranding Of SOPA: Now Called 'Notice And Staydown'

vindicatorten (EST)


thefonztm 1611 2166 555

Hey.... just for fun. Anyone know how to get a copy of SOPA and it's new cousin and run em through a plagarism analyzer like

MonitoredByTheNSA 755 996 241

This. I would be amused.

We should do this with SOPA and the TPP when it becomes publicly available, as well.

thefonztm 463 572 109

Well, I found SOPA easy enough. Anyone know where to find this new one? Got a H.R. number?

Here's SOPA:

Leprecon 524 630 106

The "new one" is the DMCA. Read the article. They aren't even introducing a new bill. They are talking about interpreting DMCA a certain way.

The ambiguity can be found in these two phrases:

  • The provider must not have the requisite level of knowledge of the infringing activity, as described below.
  • Upon receiving proper notification of claimed infringement, the provider must expeditiously take down or block access to the material.

Lets say I upload Game of thrones S1E1 to youtube. Now Youtube gets a complaint and takes it down. Now you upload the exact same file to youtube. Youtube knows this is the exact same file since it calculates the MD5 sum. Does this mean Youtube has requisite knowledge of the infringing activity? Past judgements have said no. According to those earlier judgements you could have the rights to that episode while I don't, no matter what the production company said in their earlier takedown notice.

This also comes up with the second phrase since it says "the provider must take down or block access to the material".

Now lets say I upload Game of thrones S1E1. No complaint is received since I never share the link. Now lets say you upload the same episode. Your episode is the exact same file, so internally the server just points both of our links to the same file on the server. Now lets say your game of thrones episode is shared a lot and the production company sends a takedown notice. They are now legally obligated to "take down or block access to" the file. Does this mean they have to block access to anyone who has a link to the same file, or does that mean they have to only block access to your link, but leave mine up.

Again, the courts thus far have ruled that in both cases you would only block access to one link and not the other, but this can still be challenged/changed. It would have been challenged if Kim Dotcom chose to go to the US, because the cops specifically mentioned that he failed to block access to or remove the file but did block access to or removed a link to the file. (this wasn't the only one of the complaints against him, don't walk away from this thinking "but he held himself to the letter of the law")

So this whole article is about legislators interpreting the law a little bit too broad, which I don't even blame them for. There are three branches of government, and currently they disagree about a single word in a law. When the law says "material", does it mean "file", or does it mean "link"? Even if they are interpreting it too broadly, that isn't so bad. Politicians aren't judges. Judges are judges.

clorpt 120 157 37

I've uploaded the bill to Turnitin just for fun - it's in the system now anyway.

[Edit]: And I' didn't submit this as my essay! (I'm the instructor).

HoistTheGrog 49 62 13

and the verdict is????

clorpt 185 235 50

(Turnitin usually takes a while to generate the report) -- It found it pretty much 100% plagiarized, because the bill has been published online several times already. But, it will be easy enough to use Turnitin to track changes between SOPA and any subsequent bill. Here's a screenshot of the results:

This also shows some of Turnitin's flaws/weaknesses: it didn't find it 100% plagiarized, even though it should have (it has all been published online in several formats). I'm also not sure how it picks which source to consider it plagiarized from, and by what percentage (it should be 100%, or very close to it, for each of the sources it links to on the right).

ChairmanMeow23 87 110 23

Man, scared the crap out of me while in school. Always wondered what it looked like on the other end.

clorpt 88 115 27

It's not a bad system, but it's far from perfect. It finds spurious matches fairly often. I never use it as a way to "catch" students plagiarizing, I use it as a way to help them understand if they're plagiarizing or not. I always give students at least a week to upload a paper, see if there are any significant matches (whole sentences or paragraphs), and revise the paper. I only grade the very last version they upload.

joe_canadian 61 73 12

I hated I did an undergraduate legal degree in Canada, and because big decisions are so often quoted in other papers and in the news, sometimes my papers would be 30+% "plagiarized" because so many people have quoted the same decisions and subsequent commentary from legal experts. I always had sources, but man did it always make me nervous.

mertag770 22 26 4

I don't like it's end user licence specfically this part

non-exclusive, royalty-free, perpetual, world-wide, irrevocable license to reproduce, transmit, display, disclose, and otherwise use your Communications on the Site or elsewhere for our business purposes. We are free to use any ideas, concepts, techniques, know-how in your Communications for any purpose, including, but not limited to, the development and use of products and services based on the Communications.

I'm just not a fan of that. Brought it up to the dean and I got exempted from it.

NarfSquared 21 22 1

You're a nice person.


There's probably a combinatorial/machine learning problem out there to determine using the English language and Markov chains how false positives could happen.

CMYK2RGB 3 3 0

Thanks for enlightening me about how the process works and for running the bill through Turnitin. I always wondered how the process worked when I was in college. It seems to me that one could still just rewrite what they read using other words and not do the foot work of research, am I correct? I suppose using the exact same reference could be linked however. I understand if you don't want to indulge my curiosity or fully know how the system works (I'm sure Turnitin doesn't go around sharing their methods), but it makes this 32 y/o who is not going to back school curious.

Upvotes and thanks for sharing!

edited: I accidentally a word

thefonztm 37 53 16

Thanks for the info and yes, I read the article. I assume they were discussing the that section of the DMCA in regards to new legislation. Which is why I'm looking for SOPA's cousin.

Leprecon 52 64 12

yes, I read the article.

Sorry, that was a bit dickish of me. I have been arguing online a bit too much today.

tempest_87 21 25 4

As someone who didn't read the article, thanks!

thefonztm 27 38 11

Been there, done that. No hard feels.

sorasura 11 13 2

Youtube knows this is the exact same file since it calculates the MD5 sum.

Then could you change the file by adding a second of silence or re-encoding it and beat the check?

FourAM 25 28 3

I don't think it's as simple as MD5-ing the uploaded file, although it's a good first step. You could simply re-encode the file in another format, slightly lower the bitrate, rename the video/audio tracks (if possible in your format), or even add an additional tag in the metadata.

Even if Google extracted the tracks and did an MD5 on them individually, this is very easily defeated, although again I'm sure it's the first step they try. If you can find a match at that point, save yourself the compute cycles of what is about to come next.

Next they'd need a system similar to something like Shazaam or SoundHound - an algorithm which can create a tonal profile of the video (using hue/saturation over time) or audio (frequency/loudness over time). This will typically require decoding the content into raw data for analysis, or perhaps there are shortcuts using the encoded data - but you'd need a separate algorithm for each codec. It's likely a hybrid system that uses codec-based shortcuts when possible (for the most common formats) and falls back to analysis of a raw output otherwise.

Once you have your fingerprints, you need to match them vs. known infringing works. This means storing them in some type of database which can look for "weak" matches at first, and then go back after each pass and subject them to ever more rigorous scrutiny. If you reach a certain threshold of confidence, flag the content.


Now imagine mirrors the video image horizontally, shifts the color hue slightly, clips scene transitions by a frame or two, slows the video down by 0.01%, degrades the audio, flips the stereo channels, inverts the audio signal phase, sets the image within a border (even a 1 pixel border around the edge is enough) and technically you have a new piece of content, computationally speaking. It may still infringe, but unless you build in consideration for all these factors, your system is still easily bypassed.

This leads to "fuzzing" of your results; trying to perhaps break down the video and audio into small chunks which you then attempt to match against all the other small chunks of known infringing material.

The smaller you make these chunks, the more likely they'll coincidentally match up to material which is not infringing. You have to find the right balance in your confidence thresholds to keep false positives at a minimum while maintaining the overall effectiveness of finding true positives. All the while, the cat-and-mouse continues with infringing uploaders finding new and creative ways of tricking your algorithm.

I promise that ContentID is some unfortunate and very talented group of engineer's and programmer's personal hell.

Leprecon 10 16 6

Definitely. It is super easy to do such a thing, and people are doing those kinds of things. Though this isn't really an anti piracy check, it is more of a "lets see if we already have this file so we don't need to have it twice" thing.

There are plenty of content recognition things on youtube already.

Nixon51 3 5 2

Is this not exactly what megaupload was doing?

Leprecon 14 18 4

Yes, it is.

There are also other claims held against them.

The DMCA says if you have a site like youtube, dropbox, or Megaupload (AKA Information Residing on Systems or Networks at the Direction of User) there are three rules you have to abide by in order for you to not be responsible for any piracy that your service provides.

  1. The provider must not have the requisite level of knowledge of the infringing activity, as described below
  2. If the provider has the right and ability to control the infringing activity, it must not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity.
  3. Upon receiving proper notification of claimed infringement, the provider must expeditiously take down or block access to the material.

Now what this means is;

Someone uploads Game of Thrones S01E01 to youtube. I am a google employee. I see the video, and I know that "babemagnet1997" does not have the right to redistribute Game of Thrones. At this point I have knowledge of the infringement. If I don't remove that game of thrones episode or if I don't get it removed through my actions, Youtube is now responsible for piracy. Now lets say this youtube user has adds on their channel. This means youtube is getting money from the piracy. As soon as I aware this is happening any monetisation thereof needs to end. (in a similar vein to rule 1) Now lets say there is S01E02 and the studio sends a takedown notice. I have to take it down, no questions asked. If "babemagnet1997" wants to dispute that they can, and they can countersue for damages and lawyersfees. (almost nobody does this)

Now heres where MegaUpload fits into this:

  1. The whole 'does taking down a link to a file count' thing (breaking rule 1/3 depending on how you look at it)
  2. They are accused of having had access to and making use of an internal search engine, which they used to pirate themselves. (breaking rule 1)
  3. They never stopped allowing monetisation. Even if a user had only pirated videos this user would still get paid, even after the videos were taken down. This user would have also been able to reupload the same video. (definitely breaking rule 2)
  4. What really counts as 'requisite knowledge'? A lawyer will be better suited to help you on this, but if I am not mistaken it means something like 100% sure. So youtube couldn't really be 100% sure that "babemagnet1997" doesn't own the rights to digital distribution of game of thrones. The same way Megaupload can't know for sure that the game of thrones episode being downloaded by 1000s of users at the same time isn't a personal backup. Though that certainty is pretty damn close to 100% (breaking rule 1, depending on how good the lawyer is who argues for it)

So generally, if you follow those three rules, you are safe. This is why I can find copyrighted material on Youtube in a heartbeat, yet Youtube isn't committing any crime. If they don't know about it it doesn't count. Youtube knows there is tonnes of pirated material on their website. They just don't know exactly which files are pirated, and as soon as they find out they act on it.

Jimbomcdeans 12 14 2
yaayyy 11 14 3

what does Twitch Plays Pokemon have anything to do with this?

t0mcat 17 26 9

What bill is "the new cousin"?

I can't find the new bill.

DukePPUk 25 32 7

There isn't a new bill yet. As I understand it the US Government is currently looking into a new copyright bill and this is a report from one of the lobbying/PR sessions about what might be in it.

djb85511 1031 1281 250

Notice and Staydown sounds more militaristic than SOPA, which sounds like a funny soap villain.

LeonTheWorst 342 416 74

Or, maybe Spanish for soup.

Hitchslap7 159 228 69

It's Italian for soap.

Edit: Ok guys, I was making fun of the accent, not making a literal statement.

Falsus 130 162 32

Sopa means garbage in Swedish.

ern19 82 101 19

Now this I can get behind.

Falsus 18 19 1

And it's other meaning is to sweep.

wave100 4 6 2

So how about we sopa away the sopa that is SOPA?

jomo666 8 9 1

Don't you ever joke with us again!!! jk

ShutUpAndPassTheWine 8 10 2

No, you're confusing it with SUUUUUPAAAA.

teslasmash 23 46 23

No it's not.


FarmerTedd 51 71 20


mail323 13 18 5

Listen I just had a slice of pizza from a place that had some Italian-sounding things so on the menu-board so I am qualified to answer this: Il Sopa sounds italian to me.

forbearance 78 97 19

Notice And STaYdown. I will just call it the NASTY bill.

B0Boman 95 113 18

I was thinking more like "Notice And Stay Down" or "NASD", but pronounced the same way.

blood_muffin 21 26 5


vodenspaw 35 48 13

A militarized Mr. Clean? Evil soap scrubbing bubbles that will clean you... to death?

brieoncrackers 15 19 4

I will cleanse the world of human filth! Muahahahaha!

BlazerMorte 8 11 3

Sounds NASty to me.

Odlemart 3 4 1

A Greek villain? He drowns his victims in soap, and has he throws them into his wonderfully fragrant vats, he yells SOPA!

jumpyg1258 594 720 126

A lot of people don't realize that they will continue to bring this up every chance they get until the public forgets about it and then they will pass it.

join_wrong_side 82 108 26

But it can be revoked then, right?

DorkJedi 563 674 111

The Patriot Act was supposed to expire after 1 year. It passed in 2001.

A bill that was supposed to expire all on it's own is still around- what makes you think this would EVER be revoked once they pass it?

creamyjoshy 57 68 11

Income tax was introduced to defeat Napoleon. One of the two is still around, and it sure isn't Napoleon.

Boner_at_the_DMV 24 30 6

Well, if Napoleon was alive today, he would be 245, so I guess it isn't really that surprising...

digitalundernet 20 20 0

How many laws really go away? I don't know but it seems once they are in they stay in. Hell we still have sodomy laws.

Arthur_Edens 4 4 0

This is still on the books in my state as to who can perform a marriage:

Every judge... and every preacher of the gospel authorized by the usages of the church to which he or she belongs to solemnize marriages, may perform the marriage ceremony in this state.

The courts 'reinterpreted' it to bring it in line with the constitution 100 years ago, but it's still on the books. :p.

DukePPUk 27 35 8

Not if it is done through a treaty such as TPP or TTIP.

In the past we've seen this happen with treaties such as TRIPS, or the WCT. Once measures are locked in a treaty, it becomes much harder for any one country to revoke them without serious consequences.

The way to stop measures such as those in SOPA is to drum it into the heads of elected representatives and other government officials that this sort of thing is a bad idea. Which takes a long time. Once that's done we can start revoking some of the nastier existing provisions.

On the plus side, the facts that SOPA was stalled, ACTA was stopped, TTIP is being watched closely for ACTA-lite provisions show that some progress is being made. Or at least a lack of whatever the opposite of progress is.

the_rabid_beaver 4 4 0

i don't know why they haven't tried slipping it into some unrelated bill like they've done with previous legislature.

redgroupclan 8 10 2

Send messages to supporters' offices saying that you will not vote for anyone who supports this kind of thing, and then vote for someone else. Politicians will start to see Internet-limiting bills are a stay-away issue that ensures they will lose their jobs if they dare try to touch the issue.

PG2009 3 3 0

Just rename it to "net neutrality"!

anduin1 2156 3010 854

How is this not corruption? I mean if people have voiced their desire to not have this be brought into law, why are they continuing to try to sneak it in?

Dusk209 1217 1529 312

Because they can?

TreeMonger 596 710 114

They can try.

AllegraGeller 420 496 76

It's not like they have much to lose from trying.

schustermaster 300 358 58

Hopefully voter support?

jpark049 301 361 60

Does it matter? It's not like these people said they were going to do this when voted in, but now they are for no other apparent reason than they are getting paid. Regardless of who we vote for, we have no control over what they actually do while in office.

iamesauce 101 124 23

SOPA actually needs to become a primary enough issue to land on a party's platform before senators have any reason to take a stance against

ONXwat 103 129 26

That would take the general public not being ignorant about the implications of the bill.

TurretOpera 30 53 23

Well, given that Reddit has something like a 50+x multiple between views vs. upvotes in a highly trafficked sub, that means every time this front-pages, it gets seen by probably 200,000 people. It's a start.

MagmaGuy 162 195 33

Except I'm in Portugal. And I'm Portuguese. Oddly enough not everyone in Reddit is American.

Badgerisbest 22 33 11

/r/technology is seriously just another arm of /r/politics.

BaKdGoOdZ0203 3 4 1

Which is nice, except for the chunk of that that isn't U.S. citizens, or of voting age. Then account for the repeat viewers.

chew2 3 4 1

Yeah, us redditors are so much more intelligent and informed than everyone else

drunkenvalley 14 18 4

Reversely, if the bill is passed and voter's outcry is too loud they'll flip the coin and claim they're going to make an effort against it.

WtfMayt 17 23 6

Which is why representative democracy gives the public about as much of a decision as communist governments at times.

BenderB-Rodriguez 19 21 2

you keep using that phrase "voter support" I don't think it means what you think it means.

damnit_gotta_registr 55 73 18

Lol. All voting means is, "overall I despise this person slightly less than the other person."

moneymark21 20 26 6

Based on my preconceived opinion about them because of their party affiliation.

NoNeedForAName 13 18 5

And the fact that the promises they're not going to keep are better than the promises the other guy isn't going to keep.

moneymark21 8 12 4

Exactly. This election is all going to come down to where the candidates lie on the issues they will never ever try to change and you will never hear about until the next election.

RPrevolution 12 16 4

I would like a nicer master, please.

Bainato 61 89 28

Nahhh pretty sure they can. When corruption is this deep the only way to remove it is to pull it from the roots, which would require a much larger portion of the populace to stand up and give the outrage voice.

TreeMonger 33 56 23

It's growing as we speak. There is already a majority of our population who disagree with our government. People like Edward Snowden and Oliver Stone and Thomas Drake (NSA whistleblower) are causing a stir. Things are going to change soon. The intelligence community can't even keep things wrapped.

Arcturus_Stream 75 92 17

Things are going to change soon.

I remember when people were saying this in previous years...

Spoiler: Nothings been done.

Up_the_Down_Steroid 20 26 6

People like to hope and dream and keep hoping for a 'change' but in reality, I don't think anyone really knows how that can actually be done.

ihatewomen1925 28 36 8

Eventually it will collapse, that's really the only way. We've seen it happen time and time again through history, why would you the US be any different?

Jubjub0527 15 21 6

I totally agree. I said this before in another thread and some ass ripped me a new one for suggesting it. But honestly I agree. I believe we've crossed the event horizon and the only thing to do is either rush the collapse or try to get into a better position for when it happens.

ihatewomen1925 6 6 0

The inners conspiracy theorist in me kind of thinks rich people know it's coming and that's all this is going down, they're preparing. The gap has gotten so huge and there are so many steps being taken to make it bigger. But I know that's probably not the case, it just feels like it.

iamesauce 25 32 7

just because 'a majority of the population disagrees with the government' doesn't mean there's going to be a fuckin' armed rebellion

it needs to get infinitely worse than that

Yogpod 7 8 1

But they shouldn't and there should be sanctions against them if they do.

t0mcat 394 496 102

Because people don't get to voice their desire in the US system of government except through elections.

Besides, a vocal minority doesn't represent the silent voting majority. In any issue, even when millions are protesting, there are always 10s of millions who aren't protesting. Protests don't mean people writ large oppose something, they just mean that the folks who do oppose it, really oppose it.

This country can't be run by the vocal minority, which is what anti-SOPA folks are. It's currently unknown what the silent majority thinks, and apparently these congressmen think the silent majority won't vote them out of office if they keep trying to push this.

It's not corruption, on it's face. Why they're pushing this so hard and so often in so many forms may have underpinnings in corruption, but the mere fact that these people are doing it isn't, in itself, corruption.

PC509 191 268 77

Elections. Pick one :

( ) - Corrupt Guy #1

( ) - Corrupt Smooth talker Guy #2

GamesterPowered 106 142 36

Reminds me of the South Park episode where there's an election for the new school mascot, it was between a shit sandwich and a douche

RomanSionis 79 92 13

"You've been given the right to choose, between a douche and a turd."

OneOfDozens 45 62 17

That would be because South Park makes fun of reality

Osmodius 13 18 5

I think that was the point they were making.

Samokoske 16 20 4

vote or die mother fucker, or i will mother fucking kill you

Teh_Devils_Advocate 3 3 0

( ) - PC509

Oh nah. He CBF.

GoldhamIndustries 3 3 0

Not as bad as vault 11 atleast.

RPrevolution 3 4 1

I'll go further and say neither a minority or a majority can represent a population. Only complete consensus can represent a population. Question is, why do many people have to be represented by someone else, as opposed to each person representing him/herself.

Achalemoipas 45 57 12


You mean "some people".

And what you said also applies to gay marriage and teaching evolution.

Also, this article is basically a giant pile of lies. Just watch the video. It's about the Notice and Staydown part of the DMCA that's from the 1998. They talk about how it's too old to reflect the current reality and that some modifications should be made. Nothing is even being presented at this point. It's basically brain storming.

It's a sub-committee. That's what they do. They talk. Then nothing happens.

jotch 126 170 44

First and foremost, I completely agree gay marriage is cool and all, and I am in no way contrasting the two, but its the same thing with that. You keep shoving it in peoples faces enough they will say fine, move on.

1990: No fucking way can gay people get married.

1995: No way!

2000: Haha, no.

2002: No.

2004: Hmm, no.

2006: Uhhh, no.

2008: Maybe.

2010: Probably.


brokenURL 117 145 28

Ah, the point no one wants to admit. Civil rights have been won through persistence. Unfortunately, it swings both ways. Reality sucks sometimes.

LM_Designz 29 35 6

Every bill that has ever been passed has been passed through persistence.

dgauss 40 48 8


The patriot act was pretty quick

retneftw 15 20 5

swings both ways

freemind10 12 19 7

Was about to post this. Same with marijuana.

NuclearWookiee 9 12 3

I mean if people have voiced their desire to not have this be brought into law, why are they continuing to try to sneak it in?

I'm not for the law or anything, but did the people voice their desire not to have this be brought into law? Protests and letter writing mean nothing since the vast majority of Americans didn't do so. The only way to actually voice a desire in a democracy is to vote it. And Americans didn't: they voted the same shitbags that tried to pass this legislation the last few times back into office. Why would legislators even consider the input of a few concerned nerds when their incumbency rate is above 90% and no one got kicked out of office because of SOPA or ACTA?

_BreakingGood_ 3 3 0

Because it's everybody else's congressman that are causing these problems, not mine!

angrybaltimorean 30 36 6

the system to "enforce" is largely corrupt

weezer3989 19 25 6

Because this is unrelated to SOPA, besides the copyright thing. It's getting irritating that every copyright related piece of legislation is automatically branded the next SOPA. Its content is totally different than SOPA and it has been created by different senators. Yes, it's a bad idea. No it's not the next SOPA and no, if it gets passed it wont be near the problem SOPA would have been.

Elostirion 7 9 2

Bless your goddamn soul, why can't we have more reasonable posts like yours?

Kraz226 17 22 5

Because no matter what, the internet is the last truly free place they have yet to make theirs. Net neutrality is gone, soon this will be too if they have their way.

devindotcom 7 8 1

Well, believe me I'm against this shit, but that's not the way the law works. Many laws are proposed multiple times with small tweaks because the timing isn't right, or someone on the subcommittee had a vendetta, or it got shunted to the next session, whatever. You think because people had a cow the copyright holders are going to just say "welp guess we're done here!" - no, man, they're going to keep trying because according to them, this is the way the law should be. Just like for us, it should be the other way and if we faced widespread backlash, we would keep trying. I don't like having to fend off shitty legislation either, but that's like 90 percent of the process.

carBoard 54 79 25

Depressing isn't it.

government for the people corporations by the people

Fap-0-matic 11 12 1

Because many laws are made for the interest of corporations, not individuals.

Byaaah 25 40 15

Because it is all about the control of information. It's always been about the control of knowledge and information since the times of the church. When people have places like reddit to voice their opinions, new ideas and perceptions start to form. Very hard to control a population if you can't control their propaganda which in turn forms their discussion topics and sides they take. Nothing has changed. Humans gonna human and it's up to us to rise above this kind of shallow thinking and lack of true leadership, it is time we break this damn cycle that's plagued our planet for all of written/recorded history.

IQBoosterShot 464 575 111

Zombie bills.

We have to fight these fucking bills over and over again as they keep reanimating. Whatever happened to one good head shot?

drunkenvalley 243 289 46

A good ol' headshot requires finding the head of this.

turkletom 261 306 45

It's up in it's ass. Hard to get a clear shot.

iScreme 34 45 11

Solution: need a bigger caliber + aim for the ass.

(Also, that's what she said)

DreamsAndSchemes 26 32 6

Seems more like Medusa a Hydra than a zombie

E: I forgot how to Mythology.

LnDHaze 36 41 5

More Hydra than Medusa. Cut one head off two more appear.

iamesauce 8 17 9


Psyladine 25 31 6

Dignity is the first victim when the legislature is for sale.

sage_joch 8 12 4

The first step is to realize you are under no moral obligation to submit to unreasonable laws. A healthy culture of civil disobedience is ultimately the most important defense against tyrannical governments. After that, sure, call your representatives. They might as well write something reasonable on their pieces of paper.

MattDemp 6 7 1

Rule #2: Double Tap.

t0mcat 162 184 22

Wait, I don't see a bill.

How is it "rebranded" if there's no bill?

Grantus 213 242 29

There is no bill right now. This is a proposal by a single copyright lawyer for a voluntary agreement to crack down on reposts of infringing material.

Grant Gross, D.C. reporter for PC World, other publications

kuhana2e 41 51 10

I wish your comment would be more towards the top, this was explained in another post and that explanation was at the top, but of course reddit and its infinite wisdom tends to up vote with their pitchforks in hand.

BaconAndRye 17 22 5

Ah the real truth of the matter. Thanks for this. If only this comment could break through all the noise everyone would calm down.

tootie 9 10 1

It's also not SOPA 2. It's DMCA 2. They just call everything copyright related SOPA because they've successfully ingrained it's evil in people's heads.

pemachodron4prez 57 64 7

Idk who Rep. Farenthodt is. but i like him:

Q from another Rep. Farenthold: How easy is it for me to get a license to put music under my cat video? How many hoops?

Schneider: all you have to do is ask me for permission, and that’s up to me to give it.

Q: so I have to find you the songwriter, and then the performer.

Schneider: I’m at

Q: Isn’t there an opportunity to make it easier for innovators/creators of derivative works to license your content legally?

Schneider: it violates my copyright to use my music without my permission.

Q: I want to respect that, but I also want music on my cat video.

pheliam 14 16 2

Practical questions are a good thing at these god-awful hearings.

wynden 6 6 0

Is that from the video? What's the time stamp?

Boxcheetah 225 279 54

More like "bend over and spread'em"

WussellRilson 31 53 22

I call it NAS-D because it's a nasty piece of legislation

singularity2030 54 74 20

I just call it NASTY - Notice And STaYdown

GuyFromTheYear2020 14 17 3

That's next year's title.

mopeygoff 57 77 20

The major issue I have with laws like SOPA and SOPA 2.0 isn't so much the desire and need to reign in copyright violations, but rather who is going to be responsible for policing the efforts.

Traditionally, in copyright and trademark law, it is the responsibility of the copyright and trademark holder to enforce their copyright and trademark. We see that now with companies sending the file sharing takedown notices and that kind of thing.

From the article:

The whole goal of SOPA was to basically to shift the issue of copyright infringement to the tech industry from the MPAA/RIAA.

This is the problem with the RIAA and MPAA. They want the protection and the revenue but they really don't want to protect their rights on their own. Instead, they are lobbying congress and tech industries to police their own copyright interests.

That's not right. That's not what's in the best interest for the tech industry and that's not what the government exists to do.

borgus 3 4 1

This is all I'm getting from the article too. I don't really see a problem with much else. It should always been the copyright holder to enforce their copyright and trademark. Am I missing something?

Carti3r 88 122 34

How many iterations of this will go through before it finally passes? I don't want to see that happen of course, but you can see they do not intend to stop anytime soon.

BlackDolomite 223 265 42

"The heroes have to win every time. The villain only has to win once."

wild_eep 28 42 14


TreeMonger 53 61 8

It's their full-time job to screw us over. We have to stop everything whenever issues like this come to the table. Why are they allowed to dedicate their lives to this and the people are forced to go to their menial jobs? This seems like a direct contradiction of democracy that needs to be fixed.

notgreat 19 22 3

That's their full-time job because some people are willing to pay them to do that. Don't forget that they're still people: people stuck in the past perhaps, people with a lot of power, but people nonetheless.

SodlidDesu 20 23 3

I'm just honestly perplexed because as much as I enjoy having money and recieving it, the very very very loose moral code by which I judge my actions doesn't really allow me to think "This is clearly bad for everyone" and continue to do it.

And I consider myself a rather shitty person overall.

notgreat 12 14 2

I'm pretty sure most of the people lobbying for this don't see themselves as harming everyone. After all, it definitely makes sense to prevent illegal uploading and all that stuff, preventing "stealing" is something most people would get behind.

Just because they don't understand how the modern internet works, doesn't mean they're actively malicious. As far as they can tell, we're trying to defend thieves.

It's stupid, but I'm pretty sure most of them are either ignorant, short-sighted, or both. After all, most of us are only fighting this because it will directly harm us. Google's fighting it because it would harm them. The old media companies are fighting for it because it would protect them from people trying to use their stuff for free. They're not stupid, they're just trying to protect their way of life- as old and outdated as it is, it's still how they lived, and humans hate change, especially when that change does harm them in some way (even if it benefits others far more)

not-slacking-off 8 9 1

This'll probably land me on yet another list, but I bet things like this would go away a lot faster if it involved bullets and shooters who seem to disappear like smoke...

vodenspaw 59 78 19

Sounds like commands someone would give to their dog.

vodenspaw 70 91 21

Upon further reading about this... this crap is way worse than SOPA. A single notice sent makes the owner of the site with the infringing work must be removed immediately and then be banned from that site permanently. So, let me see, if my video is banned from youtube then i will never be allowed to reupload it? even if the claim was fraudulent?

Exaskryz 36 43 7

Yep. The people with money - the copyright abusers - will not propose any law in which they have negative ramifications. A simple law of "Any copyright holder that sends a fraudulent copyright notice loses all of their copyrights and they enter the public domain" (if I'm not mixing that up with trademarks or patents?) will help greatly. While most people they'd bully wouldn't stand up to them, they'll make a mistake and pick that one guy who has enough money and time to fight the case and screw that company over.

Hell, do this for patents and trademarks too. Stops the patent trolls.

UncleMeat 3 4 1

How is this worse than SOPA? SOPA allowed the entire domain to be blocked if somebody reported it for hosting copyrighted content. This is entirely different.

Nanoblack 26 37 11

"The idea is, more or less, that if a site receives a takedown notice concerning a particular copy of a work, it should then automatically delete all copies of that work and, more importantly, block that work from ever being uploaded again."

This is fucking terrible.

suppow 21 28 7

Heil Copyreich!

throwawayBanBigots 67 99 32

These assholes just don't learn, do they?

screbnaw 60 70 10

have there been any consequences for them trying to railroad this trough multiple times already?

DorkJedi 18 24 6

Vote number 51 to repeal the ACA just happened. If there truly were consequences, this should have triggered them.

ggutfeld 11 13 2

The consequence is losing your spot as your district's incumbent.

Republicans voting to repeal the ACA over and over again are voting this way because this is what their constituents want. If you want to change the way your constituents think, you need different constituents. Many or most problems in congress can be resolved by fixing the disease of gerrymandering.

HDThoreauaway 6 7 1

The problem is that they do. They get a little better at this every time.

harlows_monkeys 20 29 9


SOPA would have changed some aspects of copyright law. Some idiot bloggers now conclude whenever Congress does so much as look in the general direction of copyright law that this means the second coming of SOPA.

When the EFF says SOPA is coming back, then it would be worth your time to take a serious look at the possibility. When it is Techdirt, you have a bigger problem you should deal with--figuring out what terrible life choices you made that turned you into someone who takes Techdirt seriously.

lifestyled 9 13 4

You're five hours too late. The top comments are already hyperbole and misinformation.

mrkracklenutz 4 5 1

Yeah, there was another one of these threads earlier today and some gave an excellent reason why this is not SOPA 2. Apparently no one read that and continues to get the vapors over nothing.

Edit: oh here it is, in /r/askreddit

bpoag 5 6 1

Keep pushing. Eventually, theyll run out of acronym/synonym combos.

nrabuttons 3 4 1

Ooh das NASty.

brofanities 33 49 16

What the fuck. How can they just keep trying to pass this when they know nobody wants it? Fucking corrupt assholes.

Justinbeiberispoop 7 7 0

Because the people that want it have money, and lots of it.

DukePPUk 16 20 4

Because some people do want it. And those people are spending a lot of time and effort convincing politicians that these things are a good thing for everybody (apart from illegal criminal scum). Some of TechDirt's other articles on this hearing highlight just how little those representatives pushing SOPA-lite provisions understand about both copyright law and technology - but they have been convinced that what they are saying is true.

buritobandito 65 117 52
Hitchslap7 79 98 19

This petition doesn't make any sense. They didn't actually re-introduce SOPA, just some of its provisions. We should sign something that clarifies what we're opposing.

raven12456 31 36 5

Exactly. That petition sounds like something on Facebook to repost to all your friends.

"Stop SOPA. SOPA stands for Stop Online Piracy Acts. In this case, all fanart will be deleted, all fan-pages, fanfics, fan made videos, etc. Please help stop SOPA."

ProfessorWhom 23 28 5


Wazowski 3 3 0

Good lord, the text of this petition should embarrass everyone involved.

BlahBlahAckBar 15 21 6

Another stupid and shit article from techdirt.

To the top of /r/technology with you!

Heliosthefour 39 81 42

Shit like this would stop if we set term limits on Congress. Senators should be limited to one term, and the term should be reduced to four years. Reps should be limited to two two-year terms. We already have a do-nothing shitbrained Congress, so I see absolutely no problem getting to reshuffle the deck faster.

AllegraGeller 65 73 8

So they'd have nothing to fear for taking as much money as possible in their one term and churning through tons of corrupt legislation? It's not like assholes that will do anything for money are a limited resource, plenty of people would gladly do a single term payday

chefgroovy 8 9 1

I used to think that term limits on congress would be great, but then realized that 1/3 of the senate would be guaranteed lame-duck, and with nothing to lose, they would have to serve their corporate overlords even more, because that it where they would be working soon as leave office.

A better system would be like jury duty. you are FORCED to serve for 2 years.

DorkJedi 11 12 1

It would never happen, but Heinlein had a good idea in some of his novels.

You are selected randomly for office, a 10 year term. All of your assets are frozen as soon as you are selected. You and your family's needs are taken care of, you do not get nor are you allowed to possess money in any form. (bribe proof) You serve your term- all of your assets are linked to the economy (not the market!) performance. If you trash the economy, your assets are reduced by the same amount. If you boost the economy, you get the same. You are audited for the 10 years following to ensure that no late bribes or revolving door shenanigans happen. If they do you go to prison for life, hard labor- and so does the responsible party that bribed you.

snsr 6 6 0

Shit like this would stop if we set term limits on Congress.

I think you mean campaign finance reform.

Manamanky 5 8 3

You people realize that this isn't going to stop until a universal internet bill of rights is enacted right?

We need to be fighting for the internet to have its own constitution and rules so this shit can stop.

I for one vote we put "Enough with the SOPA/TPP/PIPA shit" on it

colbyrasmass 8 13 5

I'm from Canada. Can someone please explain SOPA like I'm five.

relevant_thing 4 4 0

Websites worldwide that infringe on copyright repeatedly will get their domain name taken away (ICANN, the company that runs domain names, is American).

TheLightningbolt 9 13 4

Corporations will continue trying to ram unpopular and tyrannical legislation down our throats as long as they have the power to bribe our elected officials with unlimited campaign donations and revolving door job offers. As with any other major problem this country has, making all forms of bribery illegal is the first step to solving the problems.

Wazowski 13 19 6

This isn't SOPA. This isn't related to SOPA. This isn't a "bill" for your "corrupt" politicians to "push through" against the "will of the people".

Reddit's absolute and complete ignorance on legal and political issues is a fucking embarrassment.

WriterV 3 4 1

Well please do explain how this works then and what exactly it does. (I'm not being sarcastic, I genuinely want to know more about this)

Grantus 6 6 0

It's a proposal by one copyright lawyer/professor to reach a voluntary agreement for websites to keep infringing material off their sites once it's been reported as infringing. It's an effort to eliminate the constant reposting of infringing material. I think it's more focused on digital content than on counterfeit products.

Would it work? I'm not sure. You'd have to have some kind of universal watermark on content, I'd think. I imagine a lot of people would think this kind of system is still a bad idea, for multiple reasons.

But it's not anything like SOPA, which would have killed domain names for hosting suspected copyright infringement. (And a bunch of other things.) A voluntary agreement to crack down on reposting infringing content may have some problems, but it's not SOPA.

-- Grant Gross D.C. reporter, PC World and other publications

ThatTCpersonthing 3 3 0

Goddamnit, SOPA. I thought you were dead.

FatalFury624 3 3 0

Do we get to go to a fancy restaurant before they pass it? Because I like to be wined and dined before I get FUCKED.


You might also like :)