SOPA – Protect-IP overview

First, let me tell you I am not a IT person. I don’t work in IT, I just have a cursory knowledge of how things work. I don’t program, design, code, etc. I am also not a political person. I don’t know how Bill’s get through Congress or how Sponsorships or anything work.

I normally don’t do this sort of thing on my site, but ran across a quote the other day that led me to want to actually post my summary of SOPA. I don’t recall the quote, but I have also seen additional information come out with regard to SOPA and its sister Bill Protect IP which may have been renamed to E-PARASITE.

I also was afforded the opportunity to listen to the live streaming of mark-ups to one of the Bill’s & was just forwarded a link to a Tech Crunch interview of one of the Co-Sponsors of the Bill. Rep. Bill Owens of NY. I have embedded his interview at the end of this very long post & haven’t used the “read more” so just scroll down if you like.

Interestingly enough, Rep. Bill Owens (Twitter: @BillOwensNY) himself in the interview states what I pretty much summarized in one of the points below – that it is easy for pirate site owners to create new sites and have the same content running quickly. Why he thinks SOPA will stop this I have no idea. Upon listening to his interview it seems like he doesn’t really understand how the internet works, how domains work, and instead relied on someone explaining things to him. Now whomever explained things to him must not have much knowledge of this either based on Owens’ responses. How Rep. Owens could Co-Sponsor a Bill without knowing what it does, how it works, or what the ramifications are is beyond me.

Here is what I see as the biggest kicker though. If this act passes, one could simply go to any site that allows comments and post some copyright infringing work in the comment section and then report that site for infringement. This one comment would make the site “illegal” and thus could be blocked. Imagine if an unscrupulous person in a marketing department went and did that to a competitor, or one political party to another. Furthermore, any Congressperson’s site who allowed comments could also be targeted. This would create a giant headache for the owner of the site to jump through all the hoops to bring their site back when the real solution already exists in the DMCA. To take it to another level, every Congressperson who has a Twitter account could also be targeted with no recourse. All one would have to do is @ the person and it would show in their timeline under mentions and thus be illegal.

Here is the post I wrote a week or two ago when I first learned of the SOPA:

I came across several tweets / posts / etc. on SOPA & the Protect IP Act. Also saw several items on Tumblr covering the acts. I logged into tumblr & this is what I got:

This is a screen shot of my Tumblr site page. That is actually my content, written last night, wholly original. How do I know nobody else wrote the same thing? The title of the post is “A Little About Me”. Yes, it is actually about me and how my brain processes information when I read.

So, I followed the links on the top of the Tumblr site where they mention being more informed about a couple of Bill’s being considered in Congress.

Specifically the “Stop Online Piracy Act” (SOPA for short)- which could just as easily been called the “Combating Online Piracy” (COP Act) seeing as that is Title I in the document. I think they called it SOPA so people wouldn’t equate it with a “COP” / Big Brother type of Act. UPDATE: There have been amendments – Dec. 12, 2011 version here SOPA w Managers Amendment

I took the liberty of reading the document, as I don’t normally trust media or other outlets to provide unbiased summaries of items. It is much like statistics, in that one can focus on a single number and craft wording around it (IE: “ONLY 53% like vanilla flavored cheese” vs. “the MAJORITY of people like vanilla flavored cheese” – these two statements say similar things but do it in a way to shape your perception of the results).

Below is my summary of the SOPA. I originally took the view of the government doing most of the actions but one can just as easily apply the same principles to any company who wants to squash competition.

So, here is my summary of the SOPA / “COP” Act:

The document starts with the obligatory definitions, so it isn’t until page 10 of the 78 page document that you actually start seeing some text.

Bottom-line:

Each section of the Bill states specific laws already on the books that if the site is breaking those laws then the government will tell the ISP to block it, the payment companies to stop accepting transactions, and advertising companies to no longer allow them to advertise.

Potential problems: It puts on the books a law allowing the government to block any website it deems against the law. So in the future, all that needs to happen to utilize this Act is an amendment to an existing law or a new law & thus amendment to this one to identify specific types of websites they would like to block.

The proposed solution of blocking a website is absurdly simple. Block it at the ISP level, block it at the payment transaction level & the advertising level. Within hours the site can be running on all three of those w/ a new domain name and start this long one-sided legal process all over again. This solves nothing in terms of illegal sites & creates a loophole for government oversight on any site they don’t want people to see.

I am certainly not saying the government would ever use such a tactic, as everyone is honest & nobody ever abuses power, just providing “what if” scenarios.

I summarized each section below, continue reading if you would like to see more details, but everything is pretty much summed up above.

Section 102:

If a site is facilitating the commission of criminal violation punishable under several already existing laws, then the site owner can be pursued. This is primarily a section designed to be able to go after foreign based sites by saying if it would be punishable if the site was in the US & the site is directed or used by US citizens then we can go after you / the site. Take for instance the Poker sites. These are legal in several nations in Europe, and for the most part that is where they are headquartered, but up until a couple years ago a lot of US citizens used them. The US cracked down hard on some of those sites already.

Not sure I agree with some of the applications of this, as there will most likely be great usability and websites that will no longer be allowed. For instance, WikiLeaks or other sites that leak what the government determines to be highly confidential information could easily be targeted.

So what is the course of action in the Bill if these sites are deemed illegal in the US? After a process of trying to notify the site owner, etc. If the Courts say the site is indeed infracting on the law, a cease & desist order is issued & ultimately a copy of that order is given to the ISP (Internet Service Providers) and the ISP’s are directed to block the site. This means AT&T or Comcast or TimeWarner, etc. will now have to block sites that fall into this category. This is equivalent to China blocking certain sites because the government doesn’t believe the citizens should view the information. They make it illegal, block the site, presto.

This can be extremely useful for the really “bad” sites out there. The problem is this is a process. So pretend the government actually focuses on a horrible website that shows horrible things that is pretty much illegal everywhere in the World for good reason. They get the order, the ISP blocks the site. The owner now sees his usage drop to say 1/2. What can he/she do? Setup and go live with a new site w/in minutes. Yes MINUTES. Most techy type people can create a website in several minutes. Anyone running a underground horrible site knows how to do things that hide themselves from prosecution & can easily launch a new site. It won’t phase them. Which really means the process to block these sites is only going to succeed in throwing time & money away. It also means that there will now be something on the books for any over-reaching administration to use against anything it doesn’t like. And because the site is “foreign” it isn’t taking action against its own people, but against a foreign “outlaw”.

This section of course also applies to Payment (Money) transaction providers which isn’t surprising.

Oddly however, it applies to advertising services. This means if a Google ad was up for one of these sites Google would be required to not allow them to advertise anymore. That is fair enough – take the Acai Berry stuff a couple years ago where some sites were offering the subscription services giving you the Acai Berry every month, but making it impossible to cancel after you sign up (they didn’t answer phones, no other means of contact, etc.). You still however end up with the same scenario as above. Google is only required to block that one account. Once blocked the bad Acai Berry guy opens a new account with a new website and the same advertising campaign that same day. Yes, it can be done in a day – within hours. So the government has stopped nothing and has instead spent hours of legal & court time & hours of research time on each case for no end result. Also, how will the Government find out all the advertising networks that are being used? Will it just focus on the top 10?

Section 103:

Market based system to protect US customers & prevent US funding of sites dedicated to theft of US property.

If the site violates any of several already existing laws with regard to IP theft, infringement, copyright theft, etc. & a qualified plaintiff presses the issue, then the payment processing & advertising networks have to stop providing their services to the site.

Each payment processor & each advertising network will provide to the Copyright Office who to contact within their company to handle any compliance issues.

It also states that if someone wants to fight the plaintiff, they have to submit that they will subject themselves to the laws of the US.

I thought the DMCA already covered a lot of this, as there are already venues to have stuff removed from websites. Not really sure what the point is other than to go after the payment processors & advertising networks. I can only surmise it is trying to stop foreign sites by stopping payments & advertising. The issue is the same as above though. If someone were indeed streaming / selling bootleg music for instance, they can simply set up a new site instantly and continue about their day. The costs are really only applied to the plaintiff. I am sure there are filing fees & legal costs.

There is no definition of “US Property” in the document, but there are several references to other laws which I suspect have definitions. The question being of course could a amendment include “government property” or do any of those already existing laws include government property? If so, would the information leaked by WikiLeaks be considered government property and thus get any advertising & payment blocks. What about any US news outlet? Say CNN obtains “confidential information” and runs that information. Would they then be blocked by advertisers & payment networks? The process would amount to a “take it down or your site will be blocked from use of payments/advertisements”.

Given some of the technical issues involving copyrights & how that applies to government documents, it doesn’t seem like a stretch to me that the government could use this to make sure news organizations don’t publish some information. At the beginning of the document it does say it in no way will infringe on freedom of speech. The problem really lies in how one defends their use of something as freedom of speech. Defending freedom can be expensive.

Section 104:

Immunity for taking voluntary action against sites dedicated to theft of US property.

Essentially the ISP, advertising / payment networks can block services / deny service at will if they believe the site is dedicated to theft. The payment / advertising networks could pretty much do this already since they can deny any customer. They don’t have to provide services to everyone. The ISP however can now block any site it thinks is dedicated to theft & will be immune from recourse if they are wrong. It might have to provide some proof such as a link on the site to some other site. If the site allows comments with hyperlinks, this can be a easy fix for a unscrupulous provider. Of course no one would ever do something like that since all businesses are 100% ethical.

Section 105:

Immunity for taking voluntary action against sites that endanger public health.

Mainly focused on fake drugs. They primarily defined this section to be prescription drugs where the site is providing prescription drugs w/o the prescription, or selling drugs that aren’t exactly licensed. The same issues here as above with regard to the ease of these drug sellers to simply open up a new domain.

Section 106:

Guidelines & study.

Attorney General office will develop rules / procedures / etc.

The Bill essentially allows the AG office to build in what ever red tape it wants. So if ever someone were to be targeted, they would have to clamor though the office that is prosecuting them in the first place.

The Register of Copyrights is supposed to study how the Bill is applied & its effectiveness & how it should be applied to new technology.

Section 107:

Denying US capital to notorious foreign infringers.

Lots of agencies will identify & report notorious foreign infringers to Congress along w/ recommendations & research.

Title II – Additional Enhancements to combat intellectual property theft:

Section 201:

Streaming of copyrighted works in violation of criminal law.

This seems to be geared to music, movies, events, etc. The Bill not only establishes types of things that fall under this, but also amend a existing law. An example of something that might fall under this would be if you were at a concert and that concert was being videoed for later distribution & you used your cameraphone to record it and upload it to YouTube. There are several qualifiers in the section, but it is conceivable that this type activity could bring on legal activity.

Section 202:

Trafficking in inherently dangerous goods or services.

Mainly focused on counterfeit labeling & the import/export/selling of such merchandise especially if it can cause harm such as fake drugs.

Section 203:

Protecting US business from foreign & economic espionage.

This section amends existing laws by increasing the limits of penalties.

Section 204:

Amendments to sentencing guidelines.

Same thing as 203 – adjusts sentencing / penalties

Section 205:

Defending intellectual property rights abroad.

Creates a new job for a new diplomat to talk to other countries about IP rights being infringed on. Just as this section doesn’t really do anything, they went ahead and identified the specific World regions for this to be applied. They LISTED THEM ALL!! Yes, there is a list of areas to focus on and it is everything except Antarctica.