7 ms·

A very nice video, except the particular passage referred to has the clause "designed for..., has only limited purpose or use other than, or is marketed for..."

A very nice video, except the particular passage referred to has the clause "designed for..., has only limited purpose or use other than, or is marketed for..." violating various laws. I don't think any of his examples would fall under any of these categories.

aero142 15y ago
I find it disturbing that even though I am still against SOPA and the likes, that the opposition seems to be willfully ignoring this portion. Unless I am totally misreading it, it would be very difficult for the likes of Youtube or Facebook to be included. The language is still dangerous though, because the designed for clause seems to open things up. I can easily see BitTorrent being brought in to be "designed for" downloading illegal movies, because judges aren't likely to think downloading linux distributions is very significant alternative use. The thing that concerns me is that smaller companies or companies outside of the mainstream might not get much credit for having other purposes. Imagine if reddit had r/stealmovies, a judge might not care much about the rest of it if there are thousands of people using it to talk about infringing. There is enough wrong with this bill to oppose it without resorting to hyperbolic threats. edit: Thinking about it more, youtube might be a great example. Current youtube won't be brought down with this, but youtube in it's infancy very well might have been stomped out. Imagine explaining to a Judge, "no, you don't understand. Right now it might be used for mostly unauthorized music videos, but showing home videos of cats is going to be HUGE!"
- pemulis 15y ago
  The important part, as the video points out, is the phrase "enables or facilitates." Google, Facebook, Youtube, and other sites that either allow user-generated content or generate links through web crawlers are "offering goods or services in a manner that (...) enables or facilitates [copyright violations]." Since linking facilitates copyright violation, this affects every site that doesn't manually vet every single link it makes.
- toyg 15y ago
  The problem is actually with the definition of infringing site: "The term 'U.S.-directed site' means an Internet site or portion thereof that is used to conduct business directed to residents of the United States". By this definition, a Youtube channel of people posting rickroll mashups and served, say, under a .fr domain, without paying Rick Astley, would make Youtube an infringing site as a whole. A Google group dedicated to memes based on captions of The Hurt Locker and served under the .za domain would make Google an infringing site as a whole. A subreddit dedicated to... you get the idea.
- pkteison 15y ago
  A farmer has successfully been prosecuted under the -Interstate Commerce Clause- for growing his own wheat on his own land for his own use. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn It never left a state, it never left his farm, it was not for sale, it is definitely not interstate commerce, yet he violated the interstate commerce clause (reasoning was that if he had not grown his own wheat, he would have had to buy some, which would affect the market, which would affect interstate commerce.) It's because of things like this that cause people to interpret legal language in the worst possible imaginable light - 'very difficult' has happened many times. So I think it's quite reasonable to assume that at some point Youtube and Facebook will be found to be "...marketed by its operator or another acting in concert with that operator for use in offering goods or services in a manner that facilitates [illegal things]" One ad that says "Post comments without logging in!" would be sufficient to meet the letter of that language. You really think this is a 'hyperbolic threat'?
stevelosh 15y ago
I'm not a lawyer, but it certainly sounds like his examples fit. Here's the text: [A site is illegal if] the U.S.-directed site is primarily designed or operated for the purpose of, has only limited purpose or use other than, or is marketed by its operator or another acting in concert with that operator for use in, offering goods or services in a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates [various illegal stuff] Group it according to the boolen ORs in there: the U.S.-directed site is ( primarily designed or operated for the purpose of, has only limited purpose or use other than, or is marketed by its operator or another acting in concert with that operator for use in, ) offering goods or services in a manner that ( engages in, enables, or facilitates ) Now choose one of each from the OR'ed groups: the U.S.-directed site is ( *** primarily designed or operated for the purpose of, has only limited purpose or use other than, or is marketed by its operator or another acting in concert with that operator for use in, ) offering goods or services in a manner that ( engages in, enables, *** or facilitates ) And we get: [A site is illegal if] the U.S.-directed site is primarily designed or operated for the purpose of, offering goods or services in a manner that facilitates [various illegal stuff] Youtube is primarily designed for the purpose of offering a service: uploading videos. This service (uploading videos) facilitates various illegal stuff (like copyright infringement).
- tzs 15y ago
  Your second left parenthesis belongs one line higher. A more clear way to read it is to write out four copies of it, and then in the first copy delete or clauses 2, 3, and 4. In the second copy delete or clauses 1, 3, and 4, and so on. That gives a separate complete sentence for each of the four ways you can run afoul of that section: A site is illegal if] the U.S.-directed site is primarily designed for use in offering goods or services in a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates... A site is illegal if] the U.S.-directed site is operated for the purpose of offering goods or services in a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates... A site is illegal if] the U.S.-directed site has only limited purpose or use other than offering goods or services in a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates... A site is illegal if] the U.S.-directed site is marketed by its operator or another acting in concert with that operator for use in offering goods or services in a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates... YouTube fails to fall under the first because it is not primarily designed to engage in, enable, or facilitate infringing. It fails to fall under the second because it is not operated for those purposes. It fails to fall under the third because although it does get used for the prohibit activities, it has substantial legitimate use. It fails to fall under the fourth because Google does not market it as an infringing tool--indeed, they discourage infringement. The section that YouTube (and Reddit, and most other legitimate sites with user content) are in danger of running afoul of is the section that says a US-directed site is a site dedicated to the theft of US property if it: is taking, or has taken, deliberate actions to avoid confirming a high probability of the use of the U.S.-directed site to carry out acts that constitute a violation of section 501 or 1201 of title 17, United States Code Some think this will requires the sites to put a lot of effort into actively monitoring user generated content and taking down things that might be illegal, as opposed to current law where they have only have to deal with things specifically brought to their notice via a DMCA notification. The section is sufficiently unclear that that is a reasonable reading of it.
hesitz 15y ago
I agree. It's unpleasant to see him simply ignore the limiting language. He focuses over half the video on the "enables, or facilitates" clause, spreading the false impression that the provision says _any_ site that "enables or facilitates" could be taken down under SOPA. I am a lawyer, but it doesn't (or shouldn't) take a lawyer to see that the provision has fairly strong requirements other than just "enabling" or "facilitating" other violations. Sorry, but I think spreading popular arguments along these lines is a bad thing. It leaves the SOPA-advocates with the strong response, "Read more closely, you've misread the provision." Now it may be that the provision as a whole is too broadly written, poorly written, too vague and uncertain, but when the SOPA-opponent makes the original mistake of misreading entirely it's hard to win back the desired position of being an authority on why SOPA is bad.
- dhimes 15y ago
  He is saying that there are a lot of sites that offer services which could enable or facilitate pirating, because the terms 'enable' and 'facilitate' are not particularly limited in scope. It seems clear to me.
  - turar 15y ago
    That are "primarily designed or operated" for pirating, and have "only limited purpose or use other than" pirating? What are some examples of such sites?
    - dhimes 15y ago
      I don't know of any that conform to what you said. There are plenty that fall under the scope of the wording of the law, however. The second use of the word "pirating" is you interpretation. I have no guarantee that others will make that same interpretation.
    - hesitz 15y ago
      thepiratebay.org is one obvious example. Although this would seem to be a foreign site, it is actually a "domestic internet site" and a "U.S. directed site" under the terms of SOPA. This is because the '.org' domain (along with '.com' and some others) is a domestic top level domain under the terms of the SOPA. See Section 101. Definitions in the bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.3261 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.3261: Note that S.103 that we're talking about deals with "U.S. directed sites", among which, presumably most sites with domains of .com or .org would fall, since registrant for those domains is under U.S. jurisdiction, giving U.S. "minimum contacts" sufficient to assert its authority over the site. That's my reading, anyway.
zmmmmm 15y ago
The "in a manner" that you omitted is crucial here. The purpose of the site doesn't have to be for doing the illegal things. The purpose of the site just has to be something that happens "in a manner" that enables or facilitates the illegal things. So YouTube - primary purpose is uploading videos, not illegal. But YouTube doing that in the "manner" of allowing anonymous internet users to upload anything they want - facilitates the illegal things. So I disagree with you based on those few words. Even if you think your point stands, I'd posit the language is so dangerously ambiguous that it should be a problem in itself that ensures it never makes it into law.
Xurinos 15y ago
It looks like the wording of this clause has people in conflict about its meaning. Isn't that enough to suggest that it is poorly written and can result in some judge's interpretation in the wrong direction expanding the law's power?

aero142 15y ago

I find it disturbing that even though I am still against SOPA and the likes, that the opposition seems to be willfully ignoring this portion. Unless I am totally misreading it, it would be very difficult for the likes of Youtube or Facebook to be included. The language is still dangerous though, because the designed for clause seems to open things up. I can easily see BitTorrent being brought in to be "designed for" downloading illegal movies, because judges aren't likely to think downloading linux distributions is very significant alternative use. The thing that concerns me is that smaller companies or companies outside of the mainstream might not get much credit for having other purposes. Imagine if reddit had r/stealmovies, a judge might not care much about the rest of it if there are thousands of people using it to talk about infringing. There is enough wrong with this bill to oppose it without resorting to hyperbolic threats. edit: Thinking about it more, youtube might be a great example. Current youtube won't be brought down with this, but youtube in it's infancy very well might have been stomped out. Imagine explaining to a Judge, "no, you don't understand. Right now it might be used for mostly unauthorized music videos, but showing home videos of cats is going to be HUGE!"

pemulis 15y ago
The important part, as the video points out, is the phrase "enables or facilitates." Google, Facebook, Youtube, and other sites that either allow user-generated content or generate links through web crawlers are "offering goods or services in a manner that (...) enables or facilitates [copyright violations]." Since linking facilitates copyright violation, this affects every site that doesn't manually vet every single link it makes.
toyg 15y ago
The problem is actually with the definition of infringing site: "The term 'U.S.-directed site' means an Internet site or portion thereof that is used to conduct business directed to residents of the United States". By this definition, a Youtube channel of people posting rickroll mashups and served, say, under a .fr domain, without paying Rick Astley, would make Youtube an infringing site as a whole. A Google group dedicated to memes based on captions of The Hurt Locker and served under the .za domain would make Google an infringing site as a whole. A subreddit dedicated to... you get the idea.
pkteison 15y ago
A farmer has successfully been prosecuted under the -Interstate Commerce Clause- for growing his own wheat on his own land for his own use. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn It never left a state, it never left his farm, it was not for sale, it is definitely not interstate commerce, yet he violated the interstate commerce clause (reasoning was that if he had not grown his own wheat, he would have had to buy some, which would affect the market, which would affect interstate commerce.) It's because of things like this that cause people to interpret legal language in the worst possible imaginable light - 'very difficult' has happened many times. So I think it's quite reasonable to assume that at some point Youtube and Facebook will be found to be "...marketed by its operator or another acting in concert with that operator for use in offering goods or services in a manner that facilitates [illegal things]" One ad that says "Post comments without logging in!" would be sufficient to meet the letter of that language. You really think this is a 'hyperbolic threat'?

stevelosh 15y ago

I'm not a lawyer, but it certainly sounds like his examples fit. Here's the text: [A site is illegal if] the U.S.-directed site is primarily designed or operated for the purpose of, has only limited purpose or use other than, or is marketed by its operator or another acting in concert with that operator for use in, offering goods or services in a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates [various illegal stuff] Group it according to the boolen ORs in there: the U.S.-directed site is ( primarily designed or operated for the purpose of, has only limited purpose or use other than, or is marketed by its operator or another acting in concert with that operator for use in, ) offering goods or services in a manner that ( engages in, enables, or facilitates ) Now choose one of each from the OR'ed groups: the U.S.-directed site is ( *** primarily designed or operated for the purpose of, has only limited purpose or use other than, or is marketed by its operator or another acting in concert with that operator for use in, ) offering goods or services in a manner that ( engages in, enables, *** or facilitates ) And we get: [A site is illegal if] the U.S.-directed site is primarily designed or operated for the purpose of, offering goods or services in a manner that facilitates [various illegal stuff] Youtube is primarily designed for the purpose of offering a service: uploading videos. This service (uploading videos) facilitates various illegal stuff (like copyright infringement).

tzs 15y ago
Your second left parenthesis belongs one line higher. A more clear way to read it is to write out four copies of it, and then in the first copy delete or clauses 2, 3, and 4. In the second copy delete or clauses 1, 3, and 4, and so on. That gives a separate complete sentence for each of the four ways you can run afoul of that section: A site is illegal if] the U.S.-directed site is primarily designed for use in offering goods or services in a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates... A site is illegal if] the U.S.-directed site is operated for the purpose of offering goods or services in a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates... A site is illegal if] the U.S.-directed site has only limited purpose or use other than offering goods or services in a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates... A site is illegal if] the U.S.-directed site is marketed by its operator or another acting in concert with that operator for use in offering goods or services in a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates... YouTube fails to fall under the first because it is not primarily designed to engage in, enable, or facilitate infringing. It fails to fall under the second because it is not operated for those purposes. It fails to fall under the third because although it does get used for the prohibit activities, it has substantial legitimate use. It fails to fall under the fourth because Google does not market it as an infringing tool--indeed, they discourage infringement. The section that YouTube (and Reddit, and most other legitimate sites with user content) are in danger of running afoul of is the section that says a US-directed site is a site dedicated to the theft of US property if it: is taking, or has taken, deliberate actions to avoid confirming a high probability of the use of the U.S.-directed site to carry out acts that constitute a violation of section 501 or 1201 of title 17, United States Code Some think this will requires the sites to put a lot of effort into actively monitoring user generated content and taking down things that might be illegal, as opposed to current law where they have only have to deal with things specifically brought to their notice via a DMCA notification. The section is sufficiently unclear that that is a reasonable reading of it.

hesitz 15y ago

I agree. It's unpleasant to see him simply ignore the limiting language. He focuses over half the video on the "enables, or facilitates" clause, spreading the false impression that the provision says _any_ site that "enables or facilitates" could be taken down under SOPA. I am a lawyer, but it doesn't (or shouldn't) take a lawyer to see that the provision has fairly strong requirements other than just "enabling" or "facilitating" other violations. Sorry, but I think spreading popular arguments along these lines is a bad thing. It leaves the SOPA-advocates with the strong response, "Read more closely, you've misread the provision." Now it may be that the provision as a whole is too broadly written, poorly written, too vague and uncertain, but when the SOPA-opponent makes the original mistake of misreading entirely it's hard to win back the desired position of being an authority on why SOPA is bad.

dhimes 15y ago
He is saying that there are a lot of sites that offer services which could enable or facilitate pirating, because the terms 'enable' and 'facilitate' are not particularly limited in scope. It seems clear to me.
- turar 15y ago
  That are "primarily designed or operated" for pirating, and have "only limited purpose or use other than" pirating? What are some examples of such sites?
  - dhimes 15y ago
    I don't know of any that conform to what you said. There are plenty that fall under the scope of the wording of the law, however. The second use of the word "pirating" is you interpretation. I have no guarantee that others will make that same interpretation.
  - hesitz 15y ago
    thepiratebay.org is one obvious example. Although this would seem to be a foreign site, it is actually a "domestic internet site" and a "U.S. directed site" under the terms of SOPA. This is because the '.org' domain (along with '.com' and some others) is a domestic top level domain under the terms of the SOPA. See Section 101. Definitions in the bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.3261 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.3261: Note that S.103 that we're talking about deals with "U.S. directed sites", among which, presumably most sites with domains of .com or .org would fall, since registrant for those domains is under U.S. jurisdiction, giving U.S. "minimum contacts" sufficient to assert its authority over the site. That's my reading, anyway.

zmmmmm 15y ago

The "in a manner" that you omitted is crucial here. The purpose of the site doesn't have to be for doing the illegal things. The purpose of the site just has to be something that happens "in a manner" that enables or facilitates the illegal things. So YouTube - primary purpose is uploading videos, not illegal. But YouTube doing that in the "manner" of allowing anonymous internet users to upload anything they want - facilitates the illegal things. So I disagree with you based on those few words. Even if you think your point stands, I'd posit the language is so dangerously ambiguous that it should be a problem in itself that ensures it never makes it into law.

Xurinos 15y ago

It looks like the wording of this clause has people in conflict about its meaning. Isn't that enough to suggest that it is poorly written and can result in some judge's interpretation in the wrong direction expanding the law's power?