Draft Alternative To SOPA Released

angry tapir writes "Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, and Representative Darrell Issa, a California Republican, have released a draft version of the Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade (OPEN) Act and posted a copy at KeeptheWebOpen.com. The act is intended to be an alternative to the Stop Online Piracy Act."

Comments

TL;DR

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll find out how I should feel about it in a few comments

Re:TL;DR

[cheekyjohnson]

What, you expect me to read the article/bill!? Now that's just asking for too much. It's difficult enough to read the title!

Re:TL;DR

[Darrell-Issa]

Don't feel bad, I didn't read it either.

Re:TL;DR

[L4t3r4lu5]

You should feel exactly the same; It's the same document, just with a less threatening name. Don't you know how these things work?!

Don't want

[Dyinobal]

I don't want an alternative, to SOPA, or ProtectIP. I don't want any new legislation and regulations and useless laws to keep an outmoded business model alive.

Re:Don't want

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't want a bill that goes off the concept of being extreme, then "compromise" on a "reasonable" bill. Our existing copyright, patent, and other IP laws have worked well for centuries before the DMCA and other rubbish.

What worked for the framers of the Constitution should work for us now. End of story.

Re:Don't want

[The Raven]

While I personally disagree with most of the changes to IP that have happened over the past couple decades, this is a shortsighted view. The constitution is good, but imperfect; we cannot hold it as some holy document, unchanging, the word of our holy fathers who art in heaven, blah blah.

Most people, when they say 'Damnit, we should stop adding to the constitution!' really mean 'Damn, our government is huge and unwieldy, and I think it should be a lot smaller.' They just use 'follow the constitution' as a rallying cry to head toward what they really want (typically tighter fiscal policy and less government intrusion... ie, libertarianism). Please don't be 'most people'. The framers of the Constitution of the United States were unable to appreciate all the changes that progress has brought us, and there will be many changes that existing laws, even ones properly based on a constitutionally sound underpinning, do not handle well.

'Follow the Constition' is not the end of the story; it was the beginning.

Re:Don't want

[Fned]

Our existing copyright, patent, and other IP laws have worked well for centuries before the DMCA and other rubbish.

What worked for the framers of the Constitution should work for us now. End of story.

To be fair, there's been a fundamental change in information technology of a sort never before seen in all of history since then.

The old laws aren't good enough anymore. Copyright, in particular, is in need of a serious overhaul.

What the authors of SOPA don't get, though, is that no law can make things go back to the way they were, unless that law breaks all the computers. New laws will have to accept the inarguable truth that, for many mediums, copies aren't worth anything anymore, that some other measure of worth is needed in order to encourage creative business models.

Re:Don't want

[Runaway1956]

Then, I hope that you've been writing to the White House, as well as the house and senate. I have been, for years now. Both George Bush and Barack Obama have heard from me, repeatedly on the subject of internet freedom. All of my representatives, as well as a number of representatives that aren't my own.

This, and all similar acts, treaties, regulations, or whatever name it might go by, need to be shot down. I'm steaming over ACTA - a piece of shit born in secrecy, and jammed up all our orifices, despite any and all objections.

Re:Don't want

[Runaway1956]

"have worked well for centuries before the DMCA and other rubbish."

The beginnings of the current crisis predates the DMCA by about - ohhhh - 30 years, I'd say. Things started going out of kilter when the copyright laws started to be extended. And, let's blame Walt Disney and his company for much of that. In fact, I'll go further back, and say that things started to become unbalanced around 1950.

Since you point to the DMCA specifically, I would say that things started to accelerate downhill around the time that Microsoft stated that "This software is licensed, not sold." Without googling, it seems that at one point in time, one could actually "buy" a copy of MS Windows. Then with the next update to Windows, you could no longer "buy" it, you could only rent it, so long as you agreed to that stupid EULA, and understood that Microsoft owns everything on your PC - if not the physical PC itself.

Re:Don't want

[Anonymous Coward]

For some of us, "follow the US Constitution" means exactly that what it says. It doesn't mean it can't change. It means, "The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land and we cannot in good conscience call ourselves a country of the rule of law if we can't even make token efforts to follow the supreme law of the land."

I firmly believe that the people that worked so hard to craft such an amazing document realized that it was supposed to be a living document. They realized that times were always changing and the Constitution needed to change with it. That's why they proposed and adopted (and used 3 times for a total of 12 amendments during Thomas Jefferson's lifetime) Article V. Using that little tidbit they saw fit to include, we can make whatever changes we want so long as each state has the same number of Senators.

To tout the idea that the framers were unable to appreciate what the world would be like today is to truly underestimate the likes of Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison and their peers. While they may not have seen the likes of personal computers or the Internet or movies, they certainly saw the need to adapt and change. And here's a hint: the tool they envisioned to adapt and change was not the Supreme Court deciding that the meaning and intention of words written more than 200 years ago has somehow changed over time.

While I'm not answering the meat of your post, you started to drift in the "living document" direction near the end.

note: Not the same AC as above.

Re:Don't want

[wanzeo]

I have met scores of Music Business majors at my university. That's a four year bachelors degree which will run you around 50k. Thats a huge investment to make in an "outmoded business model".

Now I completely agree with your point, but it is important to keep in mind how powerful the lobbying of an entire industry on the verge of losing their careers can be. It's analogous to the entire health insurance industry drying up if a public option were introduced (And as we saw, it was defeated). So I guess what I'm saying is that if we don't have the robust safety nets in place to handle whole industries becoming obsolete, then we are going to constantly be fighting a bitter fight in congress as they each try to legislate themselves back into business. It's completely predictable, and frankly, understandable human behavior.

Re:Don't want

[Anonymous Coward]

The authors of SOPA do very much get that. This is why their law is a first step towards breaking all the computers.

Re:Don't want

[Grishnakh]

The old laws aren't good enough anymore. Copyright, in particular, is in need of a serious overhaul.

Wrong. The old laws were much better than the new laws, when it comes to copyright. We need to dump all the new copyright laws, and go back to the copyright laws we had back in 1800, where works were only protected for 17 years before passing into the public domain. This infinite copyright term we have now is BS and totally flies in the face of why copyright exists in the first place (it's supposed to be a compromise between creators and society allowing creators a limited time to profit off their work before society gets completely free and unrestricted access to it).

Re:Don't want

[AK Marc]

Without the DMCA, there'd be no need for the safe harbor provisions. So yes, I *do* want it abolished (as well as abolishing the idea that "contrbutory" infringement exists, and statutory damages). Let them sue everyone for everything, and make them prove in open court what their actual damages are.

Re:Don't want

[Grishnakh]

Musicians have had careers for long, long, long before recorded music was invented: it's called "playing live". In fact, that's how a lot of musicians these days still make most of their money, because the profits from their studio records go straight to the record company, so the only way they make any real money is by touring. The business model for musicians hasn't changed that much since the Middle Ages.

Re:Don't want

[0123456]

The problem here is that someone has to interpret those words, and the SCOTUS seems to have inherited that duty.

Why? The US Constitution is one of the simplest substantial legal documents in the world. There are very few words which might require interpretation, and those are the very words which have been used to drastically increase the power of government. In this case, the copyright clause not specifying a duration but only saying 'a limited time'.

In other cases, the words are very clear, e.g. "shall make no law", and it's taken centuries of lawyering to turn that into "shall make no law except when we feel like it."

Otherwise, who's going to interpret them?

Juries don't need a gang of lawyers to tell them what the Constitution means, they can simply acquit if they feel the law is unconstitutional or immoral.

Re:Don't want

[Grishnakh]

Not a problem. I'm sure they can get a job doing something more useful to society, such as cleaning toilets.

Our society needs music business majors about as much as it needs buggy whip manufacturers.

Re:Don't want

[Requiem18th]

What he means is that things have changed such that rulings from 1800 are not *necessarily* good for today. The fact that the rulings of 1700 ARE better than what we have today is not so much because the Statute of Anne was perfect as much as because the Mickey Mouse Protection Act is insane.

To wit, authors of 1709 were turning a profit on books with only 14 years of protection. This at a time when few people could read, distribution was expensive, printing was expensive and "piracy" (in the form of book sharing) was running rampant.

And enforcement only implicated regulating publishing companies.

Nowadays companies claim to need 120 years of protection, at a time when consumption is widespread, copying and international distribution is practically free and even more convenient than asking a friend to lend you a copy.

Granted, P2P file sharing is more disruptive than book lending, but enforcement against that requires to essentially attach a police man to every device, watching anything that the citizens do, with all the implications to civil liberties that such implicates.

1800 laws certainly aren't good for these days, it's just that today's laws are even worse.

Re:Don't want

[wanzeo]

Yes but that won't happen quietly. The OWS movement is a perfect example of people who, according to the free market, should be cleaning toilets. But they don't see it that way. Likewise, the music business is becoming just as obsolete, except that they don't resist by camping out downtown, they resist by pushing legislation like SOPA and its' new alternative hard to the point of passing. This is dangerous, and requires us to have more than a indifferent attitude towards their plight.

In my opinion, most people who major in business do so because they don't really know what they want to do, and their family, school, and society tells them it is a viable option. Until the government stops giving loans to business majors, the problem belongs to all of us.

Re:Don't want

[Ihmhi]

Agreed. Jefferson alone contributed so much to our country. We really should have build a statue for the guy. Like, a big one. Maybe the size of a mountain.

Re:Don't want

[Anonymous Coward]

The US Constitution is one of the simplest substantial legal documents in the world. There are very few words

You were doing perfectly right up to there. The Constitution demands interpretation precisely because it's so sparse. Broad principles need to be applied to highly specific circumstances for the law to be of any use. That requires interpretation.

Additionally, it's worth noting that many people who claim they're against interpretation are, when pressed, really just opposed to particular interpretations. We may safely assume you'd interpret the Constitution differently than how the various justices have done so over the last 208 years, but interpretation is inescapable.

Additionally, the more precisely and lengthy a legal document, the more it is wedded to the specific, precise, circumstances it was written to address. That will leave a lot less room for interpretation, but will require much, much, more frequent revisions of the letter of the law.

Re:Don't want

[Ihmhi]

It's analogous to the entire health insurance industry drying up if a public option were introduced (And as we saw, it was defeated).

How would the entire health insurance industry dry up?

Oh wait, the health insurance industry. I thought you meant the people who actually handle the important stuff, like doctors and nurses.

Let them die. The good employees can work for our equivalent of the NHS when we (hopefully) get it. A few of the companies can cater to the rich and powerful of the world who "want something better".

I can't think of any time where it has been good to protect a dying industry. If it can't learn to adapt then it shouldn't survive.

Re:Don't want

[bell.colin]

These "Bills" do not amend/modify the constitution, they circumvent it.

Amending the constitution is fine, but there is right way to do it (constitutional convention,voting, state ratification, etc...), and there is the wrong way (adding legislation by re-defining common terms and trying to work around it because you know there is no way you can successfully modify it when you don't have the votes or issuing executive orders).

Re:Don't want

[SydShamino]

And here's a hint: the tool they envisioned to adapt and change was not the Supreme Court deciding that the meaning and intention of words written more than 200 years ago has somehow changed over time.

200 years? More like 16 years. Thomas Jefferson, the person whom you appear to hold in such high regard (by your mention of him twice in your post) disagreed with the result of the very first case of judicial review. He thought the Supreme Court was already interpreting the words of the Constitution incorrectly.

At that point, while most all of the framers of the Constitution were still alive, they could have chosen to create and pass an amendment to stop the Supreme Court from continuing to decide the meaning and intention of words written 16 years prior. They didn't. So while no one expected the Supreme Court to take on the job it did, no one (not even those founders you idolize) tried to stop them.

Re:Don't want

[Archangel Michael]

You want to fix Insurance/medical industry ?

Simple fix ... ONE PRICE

Meaning that everyone pays the exact same price for every procedure, office visit, operation, surgery and band-aid. Not Medicare pays $50, but the guy paying cash pays $1500.

Re:Don't want

[ATMAvatar]

With our current system, that's about as likely to happen as printer companies suddenly developing a standard, interchangeable ink cartridge.

Re:Don't want

[russotto]

I don't want a bill that goes off the concept of being extreme, then "compromise" on a "reasonable" bill.

I'm willing to compromise, but here's my starting position:

Title 17 of the United States Code is hereby repealed. All rights and privileges formerly granted under this code are null and void. The United States hereby withdraws from the Berne Convention, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, and the World Intellectual Property Organization. Any currently living executive or lawyer who is now or ever has worked for the RIAA or the MPAA or their foreign counterparts is declared outlaw, and the United States will pay a $50,000 bounty for their capture dead or alive.

Re:Don't want

[flonker]

One of the reasons that piracy is so rampant is that the social agreement regarding copyrighted works entering the public domain has been broken. Therefore people no longer feel the need to respect it.

Or so the argument goes. It seems valid to me.

Re:Don't want

[Alsee]

Well, in California, they did pass a State Constitutional Amendment to say Marriage is between one man, and one woman

Up until 1998 South Carolina's state Constitution had an equivalent clause prohibiting interracial marriage. Hell, even in 1998 38% of the state's voters voted to keep it in place. Bigotry dies slowly, fighting tooth and nail all the way.

The point is, it doesn't matter what California's or South Carolina's Constitution said on the subject. They were both null and void under the US Constitution.

Under Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, EVERY STATE is required to give full faith and credit to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And that includes marriages. It doesn't matter if your state has a two year waiting period to obtain a marriage license, you can fly to Nevada and get a quickie marriage in a cheezy Vegas chapel. Every state is required under the US constitution to give full faith and credit to that marriage. It doesn't matter if your state prohibits interracial marriages or gay marriages. You can fly to Iowa and have an interracial gay marriage, and it doesn't matter if one state constitution attempts to ban the marriage for being interracial and another state's constitution attempts to ban the marriage for being gay.

And regardless of the Full Faith and Credit clause of the constitution, any law or state constitutional ban on gay marriages or interracial marriages is null and void anyway under the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. The law cannot examine the RACE of marriage applicants as a basis for discriminating between acceptable and unacceptable marriage applications. The law cannot examine the RELIGION of marriage applicants as a basis to discriminate between acceptable and unacceptable marriage applications. The law cannot examine the GENDER of marriage applicants as a basis to discriminate between acceptable and unacceptable marriage applications.

Any prohibition against gay marriages is null and void for the exact same reason any prohibition on interracial marriages is null and void, and the exact same reason any ban on mixed-religion marriages would be null and void.

The only way to stop gay marriages (or interracial marriages), would be with an amendment to the US Constitution.

Anywho, the battles will linger one but the war is already over. General public opinion on the issue is already split almost dead even, and it's increasing twice as fast as approval increased for interracial marriage. And most significantly, there is an overwhelming generational split. Exactly as happened with interracial marriage, opposition is concentrated among the older generation and particularly the senior citizens. Exactly as with interracial marriage, the younger half of the population is overwhelmingly accepting, viewing it as an issue of civil-rights vs bigotry.

The fact is, the war is over. The gay marriage opponents just don't know it yet. There is just plain no way to stand against a generational shift. Each and every day the younger generations just plain bury more and more of the senior generation, and their bigotry gets buried with them.

If you don't want to marry a black/white/asian/latino/homosexual/lesbian/christian/muslim/hindu/atheist/blond/brunette/redhead or whatever else, then fine. Don't marry anyone you don't want to marry. But it's no skin off your nose if some other consenting adult couple choose to get married. Live and let live.

-

Re:Don't want

[jmac_the_man]

Interestingly, Democrats passed that law. They had the Senate when it was passed, and President William Jefferson Clinton signed it.

Imagine that. BILL CLINTON wanting to defend marriage. Anyway, I know this goes against the groupthink here at Slashdot, but Democrats passed that law too.

Re:Don't want

[Runaway1956]

Something, after all. SOPA was shot down, wasn't it?

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/11/explosion-opposition-internet-blacklist-bill

Re:Don't want

[SuricouRaven]

Sort of. DOMA had substantial support from both parties by the numbers, so it wouldn't matter who controled what at the time: It'd have passed either way. It was authored by a Republican though.(Bob Barr, R-Georgia).

I'm amused by the justification. It's authority comes from the aforementioned 'full faith and credit' clause, which reads:

"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."

DOMA's proponents argued that while the clause does require all states respect the public acts and records (ie, marriages) of other states, congress can determine the effect thereof... which includes the authority to tell the states to ignore the first part of the clause entirely. Clever lawyers.

Re:Don't want

[AK Marc]

This is historically wrong. Marriage has always been between men and women.

I was leaving the bigotry out and just focusing on what it is, not which groups were allowed to participate. There's no "difference" between a man marrying a man and a woman, and when I was doing my vows, most vows were gender neutral such that the wording for all but the last 3 words would have worked great for two men or two women. Who it has always been between and who was explicitly excluded from marrying someone else is completely missing my point. Your specifics seem to indicate you got it, and refused to respond in kind.

Fuck you.

Interestingly enough, most proponents of homosexual marriage are against polygamy or polyandry or other forms of "plural" marriages. Arbitrary indeed. I did notice that you simply went to the extreme example I provided, and bypassed this one.

A man is eligible for marriage, under *everyone's* definition, as is a woman. A complaint about the other person being required to select someone from the other gender in no way requires the inclusion of animals as eligible marriage participants. If you complain about people picking your own examples to use against you, then you should stop using them for their "shock value" or whatever you are trying to prove with them. I demonstrated that your exclusivity rules are absurd, so you changed the bar. Too late. You stated a flaw in "their" argument, and I proved you wrong. I don't need to prove you wrong on everything. You are wrong on that, so you are wrong on the issue. And your "gays can't procreate anyway, so they don't need marriage" statements are silly, but no need for me to seriously address them because you proved them wrong yourself with adoption and fertilization options available. IT's almost like you know you are wrong, but are still opposed to the idea for no logical reason, just plain bigotry, and you invent reasons to help you feel less like a bigot.

Re:They got the acronym wrong.

[Desler]

It's Open Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade. The bolded letters is how they get OPEN.

They make record profits yet aren't happy

[ZorinLynx]

Funny how the media industry has been raking in record profits, but they still feel they need this sort of legislation.

Search for clips from "The Simpsons" and other popular TV shows on Youtube. Notice you will find little to nothing. The DMCA works, and works well. There's no need for this crap.

Re:They make record profits yet aren't happy

[tepples]

The DMCA works, and works well.

Even when a time-sensitive parody, which is a legally protected fair use, gets taken down for the two weeks that it remains relevant?

Re:They make record profits yet aren't happy

[Omega Hacker]

I was generally of the position a few minutes ago that it's generally a bad idea to have the government step into the middle of what *should* be a private-to-private issue ("rights holder" vs "infringer"). However, in thinking about it I think there's actually a chance for the government to solve the problem that is the DMCA. Because the courts are all over the map in how the deal with these things, a DMCA takedown letter is basically a completely free shotgun approach that can be taken by an aggressive "rights holder", and as such they have things radically tilted their direction because it's not feasible or safe to fight bogus claims. However, if a single agency (with strong court oversight of course, assuming that's written in to OPEN somewhere but not looking forward to reading legistlatese that's comparable to patentese) has a set of rules they follow, and the shotgun approach used with the DMCA is forcibly redirected through it, there's a chance to reign in the probably millions of DMCA letters sent down to the 1000's that are legitimate. There's a (TBD) fee associated with filing a complaint, which should discourage the shogtun approach compared to DMCA takedowns, not sure if there are strong enough sanctions for filing invalid claims to deal with the RIAA and such who have deep enough pockets to shotgun entire lawsuits.

Re:They make record profits yet aren't happy

[masternerdguy]

In all honesty, this. If you actually own the work send a counter notice. If you've uploaded someone else's work cut your losses.

Re:They make record profits yet aren't happy

[bzipitidoo]

What?! Innocent until proven guilty!

You shouldn't have to send a counter notice, ever. That's one of the things that's so awful about the DMCA and related ilk. Takedown provisions circumvent due process in the eagerness to harass anyone accused of circumventing copyright. They are routinely abused to harass the innocent. They can be kept too busy defending themselves from accusation spam to do anything else like provide services to customers.

I didn't think OPEN was going to be any good. After skimming it, I know it's no good.

Re:They make record profits yet aren't happy

[SuricouRaven]

I've been in this situation before. I made a parody video. One that fit the terms of fair use perfectly. Non-commercial, not possible to mistake for anything official. It used 48 seconds of a 25-minute episode (a clip, set to very inapproprate music drawing attention to some campy visuals). Clearly parody. I put it on youtube, and some time later the copyright holder sent in the DMCA notice to have it pulled.

Now, I *could* file a counterclaim. But if I do that, then I invite them to sue me. That would be a Japanese company suing a British citizen under American law - the legal fees would take all my savings before they could even decide where to hear the case. If it did go to court, the amount of time I'd have to take off to attend would likely cost me my job as well. I'd be ruined, and that's if I *win*. The law favors the rich, and I am not rich.

Particually annoying, someone else has uploaded the entire episode in question to Youtube, and others have used far more material than I did to make AMVs, none of which have been taken down. I believe I actually offended someone at Shopro by insulting the studio's work, so I wouldn't put it past them to sue out of pure spite given half a chance. It's also the second strike on youtube - one more and they close down my account and pull all my videos, most of which are just demonstrations of video filters I programmed. And I can't easily open another account, as it's tied into the google ID now.

Issa Bad

[Doc Ruby]

Anything coming out of Darrell Issa I just don't trust. His business career was criminal, and his political career has been even worse.

But these congressmembers don't usually know anything about what's in legislation they support or oppose except what lobbyists tell them. Wyden usually seems to know what he's talking about. I don't know what's in it for Issa, but Republicans are so lockstep that getting one like Issa to support it is necessary if it's going to go anywhere in Congress. Especially when so many Democratic congressmembers are never going to protect actual rights to free speech/press when Hollywood's against it.

Re:Issa Bad

[Archangel Michael]

So, your assertion of being "criminal" is a vague allegation of arson, and no suspect for that allegation named? Do you hold the Democrats to the same standards of contempt for their criminality? I doubt it.

Bait & Switch

[uutf]

Propose something terrible that'll never go through. If it succeeds LOL. If it fails, then propose something not quite as bad to try to get people to say "well, it's not as bad as what they proposed earlier.." Rinse and repeat until you get what you want - eventually you'll sneak one past the people fighting against it.

Re:Bait & Switch

[L4t3r4lu5]

It's not quite "bait and switch"; That's replacing an inferior product for what was originally advertised. E.g. you spot an advert for $10 carpet shampoo, the guy comes around, and hard-sells a $150 "extra super quality" service instead.

This is classic negotiation tactics; Ask for something outlandish, and go towards the middle-ground from there. "If you want a puppy, ask for a horse." The problem is that we're really, really shit at negotiating the other way.

Overton

[woodsbury]

This springs to mind: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

Do something everyone hates, then "compromise" with something slightly more attractive so that people think they're getting a good deal.

Bait and switch!

[theexaptation]

Oh this tactic again.

Declare something misguided and extreme, see if anyone notices, if so compromise to something slightly less deplorable.

How about D none of the above?

I am sick of our government being purchased with campaign *cough*bribes*cough* contributions.

Re:Bait and switch!

[Anonymous Freak]

Ron Wyden is known for defending consumer freedoms. If he's one of the people involved, it's not bait-and-switch.

Re:Bait and switch!

[CrimsonAvenger]

Hm, this bill seems, on the face of it, to require foreign websites to obey US law or be shutdown/blocked/whatever they can get away with.

Check the fine print on "infringing websites", and what they can do to not be infringing....

Not sure how that defends consumer freedoms.

Re:Bait and switch!

[rwa2]

I'm not terribly worried... the internet has always been somewhat just beyond the reach of the law. IMHO the only thing laws like this will do is increase the technical sophistication with which the internet can function beyond the reach of the law. If it gets more people to set up encryption / anonymization services / distributed mesh networks / decentralized DNS / etc. to circumvent attempts at enforcement, then it will be a better internet for the effort.

People have always wanted to get rich for the minimum amount of work. Having a piece of paper that says every else has to pay them money for doing something completely arbitrary is the easiest way these days, especially when you can also convince everyone else to pay for enforcement. With digital distribution, these days are behind us, and are only going to get further behind us as we get into various forms of widget replicator machines.

Bravo for putting up a good fight for sitting back and collecting royalties on an empire of past contributions, with no promise of future contribution or worse yet stifling the contribution of others. Now bow out as the curtains close on that act.

Doublespeak

[organgtool]

Typical use of doublespeak. The first version of the proposed legislation was so abominable that the Business Software Alliance couldn't even get behind it, so now they're re-introducing the law with a name that will be harder for people to oppose. If this version doesn't go through, expect another version of the same legislation under the guise of going after kiddie porn. You politicians are so damn predictable.

Re:They got the acronym wrong.

[masternerdguy]

Who bets that they started with OPEN and fit the name around it?

Non-Legalspeak Version

[Ben_R_R]

Section by section explanation of the legal speak: http://www.keepthewebopen.com/assets/pdfs/open-act.pdf

On the Plus Side

[CrimsonAvenger]

This bill at least allows (even if it doesn't go so far as to require) that a free be charged to whomever makes the Copyright complaint, to pay for the investigation.

If the fee is set high enough, a lot of the shotgunning we see from the RIAA/MPAA types might be cut back significantly.

On the other hand, if it's set too high, small Copyright holders might find themselves unable to defend their own Copyrights....

Still No Good

[Bob9113]

Sec 337A.(a)(7)(C)(i) (top of the third page of the PDF):

[an Internet site is not infringing]:

if the Internet site has a practice of expeditiously removing, or disabling access to, material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity after notification by the owner of the copyright or trademark alleged to be infringed or its authorized representative;

This still says that a claim is as good as a conviction in terms of requiring the removal of information, and that failure to comply with such claims is enough to cut off the air supply of the company.

We just had a story posted earlier today of a company that was closed down for an entire year without having done anything wrong except being falsely accused. We cannot simply shut down any company that the copyright cabal says we should, especially when they have proven time and again that their dragnets have a total disregard for accuracy.

Sorry Mr. Wyden, I love your work in general, but this is still far outside the realm of due process. I know; failing to support this may mean SOPA gets passed instead -- but the "less wrong" swindle has been pulled on us by these guys too many times for me to buy it anymore. I'm not going to support a law that proposes to shut down slightly fewer innocent businesses.

Re:They got the acronym wrong.

[Grishnakh]

Unfortunately, that's the way most laws are these days. Just look at the PATRIOT ACT. You think they came up with the name and the acronym just happened to be those two words?

50 years ago, they never did BS like this in lawmaking. Not saying there was no BS in lawmaking, but this acronym stuff is way over the top.

Re:I find it ironic

[SuricouRaven]

They only propose to shrink the parts they disapprove of. That's how politics works.

Ask for the Sun, settle for the Moon.

[Catbeller]

Ask for the Sun, settle for the Moon. Which is what they wanted anyway. But sometimes they even get the Sun, so why not try for it?

We are suckers. There is no "compromise" with this law.