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

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]

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

[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

[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.

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

[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.

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.

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.

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.

Non-Legalspeak Version

[Ben_R_R]

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

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.