Three reasons understanding SOPA is important
- one It could empower action against foreign websites which, let alone actively engaging in copyright infringement, merely “facilitate” it. This could place an enormous burden on proprietors for the deeds of their random readers and commenters.
- two The definition of “facilitate?” Broadly used, “to make easier.” This is very vague, and could have serious unintended effects. For instance, does Youtube make it easier for piracy to occur? Undoubtedly. Should the site itself be liable for that?
- three Upload a copyrighted song to Youtube that nets big viewership, and you could be in deeper trouble. Each view adds to the amount a plaintiff can accuse you of costing them, racking up heavy charges (this could result in Youtube-based felony convictions). source
» A great breakdown: Mashable’s dissection of the entire SOPA bill, in case you haven’t read it, does wonders in terms of clearing up what on its face is a confusing piece of legislation. It’s a solid breakdown that cuts through the legalese.
The Mashable piece is good.
I gotta hand it to the Media Corporations. They really hit a home run with this one.
If this passed, here’s what would happen:
==They’d have a HELLA time enforcing this. I don’t think there are enough courthouses (or lawyers, THAT’S RIGHT) in the nation to enforce all the “violations” they would have to process.
==If you’re trying to get people to NOT look at your goods and want to accelerate the Independently-Made-Internet-Distributed-Film business, SOPA is exactly what you do. If passed, there would be an explosion of production from Indie filmmakers who could distribute online and dictate their own terms of use/copyright rules/etc. And they’d have the Internet all to themselves. Traditional Media will have shut themselves off from 2 BILLION internet users. AWESOME! GREAT JOB, TRADITIONAL MEDIA!
== Jesus, can Traditional Media be awarded an Ignoble Award already? (You’ll have to check that link tomorrow when the Wikipedia black-out comes to rest.)
