[vox] What's On the Blacklist? Three Sites That SOPA Could Put at Risk [EFF]

[timriley at appahost.com]

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [vox] What's On the Blacklist? Three Sites That SOPA Could
> Put at Risk [EFF]
> From: Eric Rasmussen <ericrasmussen at gmail.com>
> Date: Thu, December 01, 2011 12:03 pm
> To: "LUGOD's general discussion mailing list" <vox at lists.lugod.org>
> 
> 
> I read that as EFF saying "we don't believe websites that let users post
> potentially copyright infringing content should be subject to legal threat,
> but under the new law they will be".
> 
> If I start an Etsy shop reselling goods from Acme and use Acme's original
> copyrighted product photos, Etsy could be at risk, even if they don't
> reasonably have a way to automatically filter out that content. Etsy is
> then put in a position where they have to put unreasonable controls on the
> majority of non-copyright-infringing customers to prevent potential legal
> action.
> 
> Acme could always ask Etsy to remove the copyright-infringing content, but
> with the new law they could go straight to the payment processor and
> prevent Etsy from collecting funds they might need to continue running,
> regardless of the eventual outcome of the investigation.

This is a better narrative than the website's.

> 
> If I'm understanding it correctly, this means that any of us that one day
> start a site where users can freely post photos, text (copyrighted
> lyrics/slogans/etc.) would also be at risk.

But I'm not seeing *any* cause-effect relationship with the text
of the bill. And I surely don't see any payment clause in the bill.

Here is the bill:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr3261ih/pdf/BILLS-112hr3261ih.pdf

It's 78 pages long, and it could have poison pills included. I
have enough trust in our legal system to believe that the
rule of law overrides the mores of judges. That's why
we have juries. The words contained in our laws have
meaning. What words in this law will lead to unintended
consequences?

I'm starting to recognize the issue's dichotomy. Should a computer
hosting service be responsible for copyright infringements
of it's voluminous posters? Well, Wikipedia surely takes
the effort to clean house.

I'm also starting to recognize the stakeholders. Do sites hosting
pirated music and movies sell Google advertisements?

<snip>