1 files changed, 124 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/src/dont_censor_me_bro.adoc b/src/dont_censor_me_bro.adoc
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..158abf8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/src/dont_censor_me_bro.adoc
@@ -0,0 +1,124 @@
+Don't Censor Me Bro!
+====================
+:author: Aaron Ball
+:email: nullspoon@iohq.net
+
+Most of the people who spend any time on this site are likely techies
+and already know that the road post-SOPA (and PIPA) is a long and dark
+one. For those of you who may not know exactly what it's all about
+though, here's a short summary from Wikipedia...
+
+[quote, Wikipedia, 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act[Stop Online Piracy Act]']
+____
+The bill would authorize the U.S. Department of Justice to seek court orders
+against websites outside U.S. jurisdiction accused of infringing on copyrights,
+or of enabling or facilitating copyright infringement. After delivering a court
+order, the U.S. Attorney General could require US-directed Internet service
+providers, ad networks, and
+payment processors to suspend doing business with sites found to
+infringe on federal criminal intellectual property laws. The Attorney
+General could also bar search engines from displaying links to the
+sites.
+____
+
+That sounds pretty harmless, doesn't it?
+
+While the bill seems to have good intentions (who likes a pirate, right?...),
+the overall consequences of it are heavily dependent on how the bill defines of
+"copyright infringement". The (very) unfortunate issue here is that the
+definition of a person infringing a copyright is very broad and could cover a
+very large portion of the internet. To quote
+http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.3261.IH:/[section 201],
+subsection A of subsection A of the SOPA...
+
+[quote]
+____
+. 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--
+.. for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;
+.. by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during
+   any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more
+   copyrighted works, or by the public performance by means of digital
+   transmission, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copyrighted works,
+   when the total retail value of the copies or phonorecords, or of the public
+   performances, is more than $1,000; or
+.. by the distribution or public performance of a work being prepared for
+   commercial dissemination, by making it available on a computer network
+   accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have
+   known that the work was intended for commercial dissemination.
+____
+
+That's pretty broad. So far, that would most likely shut down Youtube, Facebook
+(people link to Youtube videos, right?), possibly WIkipedia, and most if not
+all of the video hosting sites out there (metacafe, vimeo, possibly netflix if
+their licensing isn't right, etc). A big problem here is that there is that a
+person uploads to Youtube, yet the website will be taken down for one person,
+punishing the rest. But that's aside the point (or is it?). Back to the legal
+talk. In section 201 of the SOPA legislation subsection C under subsection A
+the bill describes examples of copyrighted material that can be infringed upon
+(definition of "work being prepared for commercial dissemination") ...
+
+[quote]
+____
+. a computer program, a musical work, a motion picture or other audiovisual
+work, or a sound recording, if, at the time of unauthorized distribution or
+public performance--
+.. the copyright owner has a reasonable expectation of commercial distribution;
+and
+.. the copies or phonorecords of the work have not been commercially
+distributed in the United States by or with the authorization of the copyright
+owner; or,
+.. the copyright owner does not intend to offer copies of the work for
+commercial distribution but has a reasonable expectation of other forms of
+commercial dissemination of the work; and</li>
+.. the work has not been commercially disseminated to the public in the United
+States by or with the authorization of the copyright owner;
+. a motion picture, if, at the time of unauthorized distribution or public
+performance, the motion picture--
+.. has been made available for viewing in a motion picture exhibition facility;
+and
+.. has not been made available in copies for sale to the general public in the
+United States by or with the authorization of the copyright owner in a format
+intended to permit viewing outside a motion picture exhibition facility; or
+.. had not been commercially disseminated to the public in the United States by
+or with the authorization of the copyright owner more than 24 hours before the
+unauthorized distribution or public performance.'.
+____
+
+So what we have here is a very broad definition that covers every single
+copyrighted work of music, software, and sound recording (you can copyright
+those?) in the United States. That definitely would shut down every single
+video hosting site and any other site that re-posted videos/recordings from
+those sites. The consequences of this could be so far reaching.
+
+This bill is a reaction that reminds me of
+https://www.eff.org/cases/lenz-v-universal[Stephanie Lenz vs UMPG], a mother
+who lost the suit and was put in prison for posting a 29 second video of her
+child dancing to a Prince song. This kind of response is juvenile at best. SOPA
+is very similar. I mean, who would shut down an entire website just because
+someone posted a short clip of your song on their website? This bill can only
+end poorly. If all it takes to have your website taken down, removed from
+search engines, and banks required to not do business with you is a single
+short clip of a copyrighted song or movie, what kind of punishment will we have
+in 10 years for doing 5 over on the interstate? Moreover, the issue just isn't
+about an unjust punishment for something that can barely be construed as a
+misdemeanor in almost every case, it's about censorship. How is it a good thing
+that one government (let alone more than one) have the power to censor the
+entire world? We've seen what this can do from China. Why is it that this is
+even an issue when we've already seen what this does?
+
+Please check out the
+http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Learn_more[Wikipedia
+page] (the only page that is currently not blacked out), read up on the
+subject, and contact your local government representative. Wikipedia will get
+you contact information for who that is if you go to their homepage. Also, if
+you would like to read the actual bill (as of October 26, 2011), please check
+out the Library of Congress site
+http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.3261.IH:/[here].
+
+
+Category:Politics
+Category:EFF
+
+
+// vim: set syntax=asciidoc: