Skip to main content
Meta Stack Exchange

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

8
  • 9
    Unfortunately this is indeed precisely the case. And it's the reason for our #OWS and other similar movements. Commented Nov 29, 2011 at 16:23
  • 1
    Jesse, you're saying "All you have to do is show some sort of evidence to law enforcement". But just based what I read on the SOPA Wikipedia page, for action to be taken against a site under SOAP, the DOJ or copyright holder must first get a court order, like say for a retraining order, which is a completely different story. Am I missing something? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act Commented Nov 29, 2011 at 20:05
  • Let me find my source where I read that and let you know what I find. If I can't find it, I'll strike that from my text. Commented Nov 29, 2011 at 20:31
  • Got it: money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/gigaom/articles/… . Commented Nov 29, 2011 at 20:40
  • @JesseSlicer The link you provided discusses the fact that a DMCA take down letter doesn't require judicial review. The problem is that DMCA can't do jack against a foreign internet site, hence SOPA. However SOPA still requires a court order to make it happen. Commented Nov 30, 2011 at 14:56
  • @ChrisLively Thanks, I'll edit that. But the other thing you seem to be saying is that the utterly crappy DMCA is now going global? Commented Nov 30, 2011 at 14:59
  • Kind of. If the Attorney General thinks that a foreign site is dedicated to IP theft, then the AG can petition the court to have access to the site blocked for US citizens. If approved US based ISPs have to comply quickly. The site can then petition the court to have a full review performed and access reinstated. The difference is that the DMCA allows an individual to send a takedown notice directly to the site and their ISP. If the site doesn't respond then the ISP can make the decision on whether to block access or not. Commented Nov 30, 2011 at 15:03
  • The problem congress is trying to solve is that foreign sites and ISPs can (and routinely do) completely ignore DCMA notices. As our laws do not apply to them there is currently no fallback position. So, the best they can do is block US citizens from accessing those sites. Quite simple, and IMHO, completely understandable. Commented Nov 30, 2011 at 15:05