Comment by notatoad | Hacker News Reader

Comment by notatoad | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

1. Alexis (and the other dude) tried to get to it, but got talked over: It only applies to non-US websites as far as piracy goes, but US websites that contain content describing how to get around the blocks, or US websites that decline to take down links to blocked websites are liable.

2. As Alexis said, it introduces penalties to US citizens for using foreign-hosted sites deemed to be in violation of the act.

3. the notion that it only applies to "wholesale" piracy is garbage. that might be what the NBC dude thought it would mean, but there's no way to unambiguously define what is wholesale piracy and what is casual or inadvertent piracy, and it is ultimately up to the courts to decide who the law applies to and who it doesn't. If some judge wanted to, he could probably use SOPA to take down just about any website with user-generated content. a good law isn't one that's broad and over-reaching and you just hope that it's implemented fairly. a good law is one that is specific, targeted, and difficult to abuse.

4. the point that i'm disappointed that nobody made: the pirate bay is a .org (and nominally a .com), which technically makes it a US site. the NBC guy's prime example of why we need SOPA is immune to SOPA.

Here's the definition used by SOPA:

> (a) Definition- For purposes of this section, a foreign Internet site or portion thereof is a `foreign infringing site' if--

> (1) the Internet site or portion thereof is a U.S.-directed site and is used by users in the United States;

> (2) the owner or operator of such Internet site is committing or facilitating the commission of criminal violations punishable under section 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2319B, or 2320, or chapter 90, of title 18, United States Code; and

> (3) the Internet site would, by reason of acts described in paragraph (1), be subject to seizure in the United States in an action brought by the Attorney General if such site were a domestic Internet site.

Understanding this requires understanding criminal copyright infringement. 2319 references 506 (a)(1)(B).

> (a) Criminal Infringement.—

> (1) In general.— Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed—

> (A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;

It does not seem these requirements can be met casually or accidentally.

"US websites that contain content describing how to get around the blocks, or US websites that decline to take down links to blocked websites are liable"

Could you cite the parts of SOPA that led you to this conclusion? I looked here: thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.3261: (there's a colon at the end of the URL) and found only provisions that apply to search engines, ISPs, payment processors and ad networks, not generally "US websites". With regard to anti-circumvention, I found only references to "product or service designed or marketed for the circumvention". I don't think that encompasses "content describing how to get around the blocks".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com