Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Ask Slashdot: How To Inform a Non-Techie About Proposed Copyright Laws

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the just-the-facts-mam dept.

Government 254

First time accepted submitter skywiseguy writes "I know someone who continues to argue that the takedown of MegaUpload shows that the existing laws are not adequate and that we *need* SOPA/PIPA to protect the movie/music industries from offshore (non-US) piracy. I keep trying to inform him of the history the *AA's have brought to bear on the copyright laws and how these bills are something that will continue the abuse of copyright instead of ending piracy as they are claiming. He has no grasp on how DNS works, much less the internet in general. What can I do to show him how destructive these bills actually are, preferably with something that is as unbiased as possible?"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Wrong Legislation, You Want ACTA (2, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 2 years ago | (#38876847)

... SOPA/PIPA to protect the movie/music industries from offshore (non-US) piracy.

SOPA/PIPA were US legislation and would have had only been able to be used to prosecute inside the United States. I think what you and your friend are looking to debate in that respect is ACTA [] and even that's looking limited.

Re:Wrong Legislation, You Want ACTA (5, Informative)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 2 years ago | (#38877015)

SOPA/PIPA were US legislation and would have had only been able to be used to prosecute inside the United States.

SOPA/PIPA were US legislation that were sold largely on their utility in fighting foreign-origin piracy by (among other things) requiring ISPs in the US to block access to foreign sites that were (accused of) providing pirated materials.

Re:Wrong Legislation, You Want ACTA (5, Informative)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | more than 2 years ago | (#38877073)

SOPA/PIPA were US legislation and would have had only been able to be used to prosecute inside the United States.

Absolutely backwards.
SOPA, specifically [] -
" Rep. Goodlatte, "Intellectual property is one of America's chief job creators and competitive advantages in the global marketplace, yet American inventors, authors, and entrepreneurs have been forced to stand by and watch as their works are stolen by foreign infringers beyond the reach of current U.S. laws."
"They say it protects the intellectual-property market and corresponding industry, jobs and revenue, and is necessary to bolster enforcement of copyright laws, especially against foreign websites"
Claiming flaws in present laws that do not cover foreign owned and operated sites, and citing examples of "active promotion of rogue websites" by U.S. search engines, proponents say stronger enforcement tools are needed.

SOPA is designed to American citizens from accessing foreign sites that are deemed (implied) to be infringing.

Re:Wrong Legislation, You Want ACTA (5, Insightful)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 2 years ago | (#38877291)

No need to get into that. Tell him/her that:

1. Information flows freely between people. There is no way around that. It's been like that since humans were first able to communicate.
2. This didn't mean much back in the days since information was tied to physical media (books, tapes...), so it was essentially not free except what you could say/listen to, which was naturally limited by our brains.
3. Information is now infinite and fast and without borders (for all intents and purposes pertaining to copyrights)
4. You can encrypt and obfuscate communications with the help of computers, beyond the reach of anyone, including the law enforcement. Hence, with little overhead, nobody can tell what you transmit over the internet, except the guy at the other end with the key/password.

0. Anyone can communicate freely with everyone else, MEANS:
1. Copyrights of information transferable by the internet are not enforceable anymore. Period. Unless you disconnect everyone from the internet.
2. Any law trying to prevent this will just harm lawful activities on the web by making it more and more cumbersome and risky to operate a legitimate website.
3. Piracy will not be reduced or stopped by anything else that global extinction of the internet. It is detectable for some part right now because people don't bother hiding themselves. This will change quickly and without pain from the pirates.

Ah... One last thing: It doesn't mean the end of music/films/books artists, but it surely means the end of movie/films/books distributors.

Re:Wrong Legislation, You Want ACTA (1)

PerfectionLost (1004287) | more than 2 years ago | (#38877561)

Copyrights of information transferable by the internet are not enforceable anymore. Period. Unless you disconnect everyone from the internet.

Interestingly enough, this is what SOPA/PIPA was trying to do by shutting down DNS.

Find a Good Car Analogy (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38876873)

Find a Good Car Analogy

Re:Find a Good Car Analogy (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38876987)

I find the basic concept of DNS pretty easy to explain using a phonebook analogy. You know a name and you need a number.

Although with all this fancy cell phone shit, that may be an out of date concept as well.

Re:Find a Good Car Analogy (5, Informative)

jimbolauski (882977) | more than 2 years ago | (#38877047)

Your car is a TCP packets, the DNS is your gps, when one person in the town breaks a law the whole town is removed from the gps. Now anyone driving buy looking for a gas/hotel/restaurants will not find one in that town, even though the owners did not break the law their business are hurt, all because one person broke the law in the town.

Re:Find a Good Car Analogy (2)

masternerdguy (2468142) | more than 2 years ago | (#38877085)

A better analogy would be giving everyone in town a reprimand for one person breaking the law.

Re:Find a Good Car Analogy (2)

jimbolauski (882977) | more than 2 years ago | (#38877143)

Except outsiders would still be able to find the town, and with DNS removal only people that know the actual location (IP address) would be able to find it.

Re:Find a Good Car Analogy (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38877271)

take the analogy a little bit further. Let's assume the town is a US town or at least has some stores from US and foreign companies. One of the foreign company stores breaks the law by illegally selling US products. The store is not punished for this but rather all US citizens are now blocked from going into that town again to buy anything, even from the innocent US stores.
Foreigners on the other hand can still freely enter the town and do business with whomever they want, even with the foreign store illegally selling US products.

Re:Find a Good Car Analogy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38877109)

And as it is much more likely to be used, everyone in that town will be hurt because one person in that town attempted to compete with one of the *AA groups by releasing their own music/movie without going through one of the *AA publication/taxation channels, or because one person in that town dared to criticize the product of one of the *AA groups, and is being silenced through further abuse of even more draconian laws than the ones they're already abusing to silence critics.

Re:Find a Good Car Analogy (5, Informative)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#38877315)

I read a good analogy on another thread concerning megaupload...

Imagine you own a storage unit in a large complex. Now, a few other people are storing illegal contraband in their storage unit, but that's just a few out of hundreds, and most people are perfectly law-abiding. The police get wind that there's contraband in one of the units. They react by putting police tape up across the front of the entire storage unit complex, confiscate everything, legal and illegal alike, and torch it all...just to be sure they got all the contraband.

Another good one I heard: Imagine a full parking garage. One of the cars in the parking garage was used in the commission of a bank robbery. The cops don't want to be bothered trying to figure out which car it was specifically, so instead they impound the entire garage full of cars permanently and tell all the owners they have no recourse. They get the car they were after, but in the process infringe upon the rights of everyone else.

Both of those do a good job of explaining how law abiding citizens will be totally screwed by shit like SOPA/PIPA. At Megaupload, there were millions of legitimate users doing nothing wrong, but all their shit is taken, too, no trial, no recourse, no chance to ever get their totally legal content back, just because other people broke the law. If it were a physical structure, like the storage unit or garage in the above analogies, nobody would argue that the public would go apeshit, but because it's a web site and a bunch of 1's and 0's people don't conceptualize it like that, but that's what it is.

Re:Find a Good Car Analogy (2)

Ucklak (755284) | more than 2 years ago | (#38877513)

If one person speeds on your street, they take the street away.

Re:Find a Good Car Analogy (4, Interesting)

next_ghost (1868792) | more than 2 years ago | (#38877517)

Better yet - ACTA, SOPA and PIPA are the digital equivalent of trying to legislate water to flow uphill. You can try as hard as you want but it just won't happen.

Those laws will have no effect whatsoever on the actual copyright monopoly infringements. Pirates will simply abandon sharing technologies vulnerable to enforcement and take better care of covering their tracks. Technology and will of individuals to break stupid laws always beat the law. Communists in Central and Eastern Europe tried to crush rock music by force in 1960s and 1970 and they failed miserably despite much harsher penalties for live performance and distribution of records. They failed miserably.

What makes you think that the almighty US of A can win the very same war on culture? Because that's what it is. Sharing is what creates culture out of individual works of art.

Amputation Analogy (3, Insightful)

invid (163714) | more than 2 years ago | (#38877641)

I prefer the amputation analogy. Stealing is bad. Chopping off the thief's hand is even worse. Chopping off the thief's hand and the hand of anyone who bought stolen goods from the thief is even worse than that. Chopping off the thief's hand, the hand of anyone who bought stolen goods, and anyone who might or might not have bought stolen goods is SOPA.

Politician? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38876875)

This person wouldn't happen to be a politician would they?

Re:Politician? (2)

ciderbrew (1860166) | more than 2 years ago | (#38876983)

A judge.

Re:Politician? (2)

CokoBWare (584686) | more than 2 years ago | (#38877601)

oh god...

Both of you are half retarded (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38876887)

I suggest you do the country a favor and sip the special kool-aid

Give up (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38876891)

"He has no grasp on how DNS works, much less the internet in general. What can I do to show him how destructive these bills actually are..."

Sounds like he's beyond hope, but probably has a bright future in politics.

Don't give up... (2)

skids (119237) | more than 2 years ago | (#38877053)

Find out his personal domain names. Then file a frivolous DMCA takedown complaint on something he's linked. Or just send him a trumped up takedown notice.

(All in jest of course, but one wonders whether a campaign of emails claiming "your domain will be revoked in 3 days" then letting them off the hook by explaining how that was just to get their attention about legislative wranglings... might be effective.)

Setup your own DNS server and point his PC at it.. (5, Interesting)

ikedasquid (1177957) | more than 2 years ago | (#38876905)

..and randomly "blacklist" Google, FB, Yahoo, YouTube, etc. on it with some notice of copyright infringement.

Re:Setup your own DNS server and point his PC at i (1)

lexa1979 (2020026) | more than 2 years ago | (#38876939)

mod parent up :)

Re:Setup your own DNS server and point his PC at i (4, Interesting)

JAlexoi (1085785) | more than 2 years ago | (#38877017)

Or better yet, find where he stores his private photos and videos and send a DMCA takedown notice. Make it look legit and have something like - in your picture you have X that is there without permission.
Or just block that site completely.... In essence just demonstrate how his life would be affected by the laws.

Re:Setup your own DNS server and point his PC at i (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38877201)

Be sure to include links to The Pirate Party and mention "teh copywrong is br0kenzZ!!" along with all the testimonials of various slashdorks justifying their downloads with crap like "If this song only costs 2.7 cents, I'd buy it!!", "I bought something I didn't like one time so it makes perfect sense to rip some other artist off to make up for my loss" and "Copyright was meant to be limited to spur creativeness in society. To ensure this creativeness I'll download Soundgarden albums and not contribute anything back into the artistic pool."
This isn't to say that there aren't reasons to oppose the legislations but many of the excuses for breaking the law lack any amount of logic and only makes things worse.

Re:Setup your own DNS server and point his PC at i (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 2 years ago | (#38877617)

How about, "The law is unjust, and I don't recognize them as legitimate."

That is all the reason I need to "break the law".

A little unclear on the concept... (5, Insightful)

Dog-Cow (21281) | more than 2 years ago | (#38876911)

You don't need to explain copyright. You just need to use logic.

If existing laws are inadequate, the FBI would not have been able to take down MegaUpload. MegaUpload has been taken down, thus existing laws must be adequate. QED.

Re:A little unclear on the concept... (1)

Xacid (560407) | more than 2 years ago | (#38877079)

I was actually writing the same exact thing until I caught your post. I'm pretty sure if the OP's friend doesn't understand this logic then they might as well leave him glued to the tv on fox and go about their life elsewhere.

Re:A little unclear on the concept... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38877145)

Yes, you need to explain copyright. Facts can make a person even more resolved to believe what they already believe. Especially when they contradict what they think is reality. Very few people can be swayed by logic, I would thing a nerd community would be one of those that thinks logically, and can't understand why someone else can't think logically.

Re:A little unclear on the concept... (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 2 years ago | (#38877349)

If existing laws are inadequate, the FBI would not have been able to take down MegaUpload.

You are making the unwarranted assumption that the FBI acts legally, when there is evidence that in many cases they do not. For instance, they bugged Martin Luther King's hotel room, and then tried to blackmail him with the sounds of him getting it on.

Re:A little unclear on the concept... (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#38877455)

That would imply that MegaUpload was the whole problem, and the problem was now resolved. Yes, they were able to take down MegaUpload using paragraphs designed for the Mafia and things like that (RICO) but that is usually just the tip of the iceberg. If you're talking to a person that argues that piracy must be stomped out, then I'm not going to argue that the existing laws still stop piracy because they won't. Neither would SOPA/PIPA/ACTA and all the king's horses and all the king's men, but it would put every site that allows user uploaded content at risk.

Only big corporations with lots of lawyers like Google will afford to operate a photo/music/video/file sharing site because it can be used for infringing files and that will get you shut down. You don't even get your day in court, boom and your DNS is gone which practically means your site has been banned from the Internet. No rule of law, no due process, it's basically going back a thousand years to before the Magna Carta, but instead of the King you have Hollywood making decisions at a whim. And if he thinks it doesn't apply to him, tell him that yes it will.. because when he's going to share his family photos or home videos those services won't be there because they've been shut down.

Perhaps he does not even fundamentally doesn't understand what he's asking for. They want to shut down your phone carrier because they're not listening to your calls, that's the essence of it. They only want to provide a communication service, but you don't think that's enough. Criminals could use the phone! It's like demanding voice recognition and text analysis to find possible criminal phone calls and forward them to the police, and if they don't well with proof that crimes have been planned on the phone they will get shut down. That's the model they want for the Internet.

Re:A little unclear on the concept... (1)

skywiseguy (1347553) | more than 2 years ago | (#38877653)

except his position is that if the laws were adequate, a site like MegaUpload would not have been able to flourish as well as it did.

I like those Farmers Insurance commercials... (4, Insightful)

TWX (665546) | more than 2 years ago | (#38876915)

...for their analogies.

Take his hard disk drive full of his downloaded music, movies, porn, etc, and say, "This is all of the stuff provided through the Internet". Take a hammer, say, "This is the new laws that they're planning on passing". Then say, "This is the result of those new laws" and smash the hard disk drive to bits.

Granted, you'll lose a friend, but you might gain an ally...

Re:I like those Farmers Insurance commercials... (1)

larys (2559815) | more than 2 years ago | (#38877397)

The first thing my mind went to is this old commercial: [] Now take that hard drive analogy a step further and change that hammer into a frying pan... Then: This is your hard drive *holds up hard drive*...this is your hard drive on SOPA...*smash* ...this is what your wallet goes through *smash*...and your freedom for personal expression *smashes stereo*...your privacy and freedom from not being monitored *smashes windows*...your desire to surf the internet *smashes monitor*...and your ability to watch movies online rather than spending five hours cleaning your garage to find the dvd *smashes television*...any questions?

Easily done (5, Insightful)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#38876925)


Take their lunch.

Then steal their wallet.

And tell them it's because you THINK they pirated a movie or music CD and they "owe" you.

Smashing their laptop or other portable computing device is optional.

That's SOPA, ACTA, and a host of others in action: no due process.

Re:Easily done (1)

TheDarkMaster (1292526) | more than 2 years ago | (#38877041)

Good one

Re:Easily done (1)

ciderbrew (1860166) | more than 2 years ago | (#38877089)

+1mod of that's a good way of putting it.
This is the good side of it. Please go one step more.
If they don't like it. Tell them it for protection against terrorist or paedophiles. They must want protection against those.
If they have a relative outside the USA. Get cousin Julian extradited. He didn't break the law in his own land - It doesn't matter.

Re:Easily done (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38877637)

If you use terror words like "pirated", the content mafia has already won. It's like saying "nigger" to a black person.
It's not only creating very nasty false connotations, but is also highly offensive.
Don't do it.

Re:Easily done (4, Interesting)

uigrad_2000 (398500) | more than 2 years ago | (#38877647)

If you are trying to convince a conservative that SOPA/PIPA is bad, it's very easy:

Explain to a conservative that SOPA == "Fairness Doctrine - part 2"

The Fairness Doctrine was an attempt to use the government to stop Rush Limbaugh's radio show. Like the show or not, it was too successful, and Congress felt like it was their duty to stop it. Because of 1st amendment, they couldn't just make the show illegal, so instead, they tried to give the FCC the ability to withdraw licenses from stations whose programming was too biased.

Now, the government sees the internet as another huge industry that cannot be controlled. The least-controlled part of the internet is forums (like Slashdot). People can, and do, say anything.

Once again, the first amendment gets in the way. But, Congress is creative. Is it possible for them to get the power to shutdown entire sites based only on the content posted to the site?

The answer is obvious ... copyrighted material. Find a site that you don't like, submit copyrighted material (as a plant), and then if they don't clean it up completely, have them shut down at the DNS level.

The only obstacles were technical (no current method to force DNS servers to drop records), and political (DMCA guarantees safe harbor privileges to ISPs and websites from the actions of users). SOPA/PIPA are designed to clear both obstacles.

Liberals are a little different.

Usually liberals respond well to stories of corporate greed. Explain to them that the MPAA and Disney are big business, and that they are the only ones pushing for this legislation. I'd like to see a liberal respond with the best methods of persuading other liberals.

Ask them WHY exactly we would need those (1)

bickerdyke (670000) | more than 2 years ago | (#38876927)

They've been perfectly able to take down Megaupload without SOPA/PIPA.

So how could a sane person logically argue we'd need them to bring down similar criminal sites. (Considering megaupload criminal for the sake of the argument only. Everything else: Innocent until proven guilty)

Re:Ask them WHY exactly we would need those (1)

OakDragon (885217) | more than 2 years ago | (#38877211)

Also a good argument against 99% of new legislation.

Re:Ask them WHY exactly we would need those (2)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#38877255)

Taking down megaupload took a lot of work, international cooperation, the use of political capital and no doubt all sorts of slow playing of games. For what? Taking down a single site, when there are about twenty more still running. With SOPA/PIPA, copyright organisations could kill ten of them with a single letter - the only way to whack the moles quickly enough.

Re:Ask them WHY exactly we would need those (1)

bickerdyke (670000) | more than 2 years ago | (#38877623)

I doubt that US local laws can take down sites in other countries without the same

lot of work, international cooperation, the use of political capital and no doubt all sorts of slow playing of games

Re:Ask them WHY exactly we would need those (1)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | more than 2 years ago | (#38877631)

Sorry, "We the police want to do less, if possible zero, actual work" is not an acceptable reason for passing national and international copyright legislation.

Wait a minute... (3, Insightful)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 2 years ago | (#38876945)

Wouldn't the takedown of MegaUpload show that existing laws are already adequate? After all, the site was taken down...

Re:Wait a minute... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38877335)

Presumably the fact that the site was able to operate for so long without action being taken against it.

"Look, these pirates cost Real Americans $200 trillion and it took 2 years to build a case to take them down. If we had SOPA/PIPA/ACTA/The 'Puppies are great and I don't want children abused by paedophiles anti-piracy act of 2012' then we'd have been able to stop them straight away, thus preserving all those jobs that they stole from us"

Or thereabouts.

Preferably as unbiased as possible (1)

LordCrank (74800) | more than 2 years ago | (#38876949)

You ask for a source giving a specific viewpoint on SOPA/PIPA that is also as unbiased as possible?

What does being a non-techie have to do with this? (2)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 2 years ago | (#38876957)

I know someone who continues to argue that the takedown of MegaUpload shows that the existing laws are not adequate and that we *need* SOPA/PIPA to protect the movie/music industries from offshore (non-US) piracy.

I don't think you need to appeal to any particular technical expertise to explain that the takedown of MegaUpload shows that existing laws are more than adequate, since MegaUpload was offshore (non-US) piracy and it was taken down under existing laws.

Re:What does being a non-techie have to do with th (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38877157)

It's the submitters way of going "HERP DERP THIS GUY IS TEH STUPID!!!" because then it plays into his and Slashdot's bias of the fact that if you're not a techie you're just a "luser". Ignoring the fact that technies havce been wrong about many things.

Simply tell them.... (2)

3seas (184403) | more than 2 years ago | (#38876973)

They are gonna start putting to death any copyright violators. That the copyright industry doesn't need buyers, they can have it all for themselves.

Pointg is, when someone has made up their mind, right or wrong, telling them they are wrong will not work, So you have to use the same sort of irrational logic to get them to tell you that you are wrong... so that they will see for themselves their own errors.

Re:Simply tell them.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38877385)

in other words:

you can't reason someone out of what they weren't reasoned into ;)

"Unbiased as possible"? (1)

sohmc (595388) | more than 2 years ago | (#38876981)

If you are against PIPA/SOPA, then you are not unbiased. Do you mean as "truthfully as possible"?

Both side of this argument have used puffery to describe the law. But the clearest argument against it I've seen is the one that Wordpress linked to [] .

Re:"Unbiased as possible"? (1)

Nemyst (1383049) | more than 2 years ago | (#38877253)

Obviously only the bad guys (ie those who disagree with me) are biased.

Give up while you can (3, Insightful)

Prod_Deity (686460) | more than 2 years ago | (#38877009)

As in other articles, people have pointed out that the general public doesn't care.
I know I've done what I can to let people know about the issues, but they seem to just shrug it off like it is no big deal to them. Some people are too blind to see the tree they're driving into, until it's too late to swerve out of the way.

Copyright or avoid the cost of copyright. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38877019)

Don't forget to point out that SOPA andACTA are not about combatting piracy.

They are about decreasing the cost and risk for the copyright holders. Using this legislation they can issue orders without any oversight or liability, and without any costs to them.

Find an analogy to that (you peddle X, but want to put the cost of peddling X on the general public via a 3rd party (ISP))

Re:Copyright or avoid the cost of copyright. (5, Informative)

HappyHead (11389) | more than 2 years ago | (#38877405)

Don't forget to point out that SOPA andACTA are not about combatting piracy.

They are about decreasing the cost and risk for the copyright holders. Using this legislation they can issue orders without any oversight or liability, and without any costs to them.

Find an analogy to that (you peddle X, but want to put the cost of peddling X on the general public via a 3rd party (ISP))

THIS! This exactly!

The whole point of SOPA, PIPA, and ACTA, is that the corporations want to escape the last few shreds of oversight and responsibility they currently have to deal with under existing laws. These laws were NEVER about combatting piracy - they are entirely about making sure that the copyright industry companies don't have to worry about little things like actually telling the truth when they say they own the copyright for something and are shutting you down.

Under current laws, if you post a video of yourself doing something, like say, a college professor posting videos online of his lectures so that his students can view them, and the MPAA files a takedown notice claiming they own that video and the prof is a dirty stinking pirate for stealing it from them (even though it's a false accusation), the prof has (supposedly) the recourse that he can file a counter-notice, and have the videos restored, (note: this is an actual example from the real world - they really did this.) and then the MPAA would to take him to actual court to sue for damages (which they didn't, because they didn't have any evidence, and it was obvious that they didn't actually own the material) instead of just having him thrown in jail and his property seized without having to show any evidence that he actually did what they claim. Under the combination of SOPA, PIPA, and ACTA, the MPAA would not have had to go through any legal procedures, or have any evidence that the prof's lectures belonged to them (which they didn't), but instead would be allowed to just say "BAD! YOU ARE THIEF!", and automatically be correct under the law, because they said so, and thus be allowed to take his domain, and shut him down with no recourse, no right to a trial, and no way to do anything about it.

Considering how little responsibility the MPAA and RIAA have demonstrated when applying the current copyright laws, is it any wonder that people who are paying attention don't trust them to behave with laws that take away what little responsibility and oversight they currently have?

Even worse, these laws are so poorly put together that any nutjob with a grudge can do the same thing to anyone they don't like, and have anything that person has put online shut down (the whole website), with little to no proof that their claims are true. Did you accidentally mention that you like eating bacon on your website? Look out - when the crazy person who has decided that all bacon-loving people are actually aliens trying to hypnotize the human race into complacency, they can fulfill their personal mission of silencing your bacon-promoting alien agenda by falsely using SOPA/PIPA/ACTA to shut down your website. Before you even know it has happened, you're gone, and if you are very lucky, you might even find out why, some day.

Start at the beginning (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38877023)

Point them to the start of the MegaUpload saga when UMG first took down MegaUpload's paid-for music video on the justification that they "had contracts with some of the singers involved" and anyway it was all YouTube's fault for letting them have tools that automatically take down songs without having to confirm whether they really do hold the copyright. Basically, that automatic take-down is what they currently abuse on YouTube to take down other completely legitimate videos, and it is a system that they would absolutely abuse to outright destroy YouTube and other similar sites (Game Trailers is one to bring up with gamers) like any movie trailer site that isn't "authorized" to show commercials for Hollywood movies, if they can get SOPA/PIPA/ACTA legislation.

If you want to scare them out of copyright laws entirely, just ask them if they've ever had a birthday party with friends over and someone sang "Happy Birthday" to them, or if they have kids whether they've sang Happy Birthday themselves to their kids and their friends. That song is still held under copyright and earns the current owners $25 MILLION every year. Even the Girl Guides were sued for singing "Happy Birthday".

Highways (1)

SniperJoe (1984152) | more than 2 years ago | (#38877033)

I know it's quite simplistic, but I would simply equate it to highways and car travel. Basically, the government would have the right to shut down certain exits on the highway or even whole highways themselves because someone at one point sped on that stretch of road, regardless of what is at that exit.

DNS is like a phone book (5, Insightful)

mepperpint (790350) | more than 2 years ago | (#38877057)

DNS is a lot like a phone book, which is something many people understand. If we blacklist someone from DNS it's like removing them from the phone book. Their phone number still works and anyone can call them. Removing an illicit phone number from the phone book will not prevent people from dialing the number. A phone number would still be passed around in forums, between friends, etc.

Regularly removing phone numbers from the phone book may create many alternative phone books which is likely to create a big headache for all users in figuring out which phone book they need to use to find a particular website and in figuring out which phone books contain legitimate information and which ones will give you the real phone number for your bank and which ones will give you fake books. This is particularly concerning because the legislation proposed doesn't apply due process to removing a phone number from the phone book, but instead allows for arbitrary removals.

Re:DNS is like a phone book (1)

heypete (60671) | more than 2 years ago | (#38877543)

That is an excellent analogy. If you don't mind, I'm going to use that description to explain things to others.

Re:DNS is like a phone book (1)

TheNastyInThePasty (2382648) | more than 2 years ago | (#38877567)

This is exactly how I explained it to my girlfriend and I think it's a perfect analogy.

Occam's Razor (3, Funny)

trongey (21550) | more than 2 years ago | (#38877061)

The simplest solution is usually the best.
Just shoot him.

Re:Occam's Razor (1)

JAlexoi (1085785) | more than 2 years ago | (#38877135)

Nah... Accuse him of being a pirate(copyright violations are identified as piracy these days) and let the cops shoot him!
OH... Wait! Make him walk the plank! Arghhh...

Do you know how? The Christmas song 12 Days has an add-on in the form of a copyrighted line about the ring... Remind him of that!(If he celebrates Christmas)

Don't bother, they are clearly a moron (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 2 years ago | (#38877065)


Here we have an example of a Hong Kong based company with German and Dutch executives living in New Zealand. It was completely shutdown under the existing rules.

And somehow that means they need new powers? Because the existing ones aren't enough?!?

Start witht the basics (2)

somarilnos (2532726) | more than 2 years ago | (#38877077)

DNS, while a very technical description, can be described in a very non-technical way so that people can get it. If you have an old phone book around (probably unlikely), a good way to describe it would be to flip through the phone book, find a number, and cross it out with a marker. Cross out several more names and numbers, and explain that that's what the trade organizations (RIAA/MPAA) can do if the laws pass, without giving the affected party a day in court, first. You can explain that if you know someone's phone number, then you can still call them. But you can't find anywhere that can legally give you that phone number, and if they change it, you'll have no way of getting the new one legally. In lieu of a phone book, you could always go to the index of a technical book. I wouldn't recommend vandalizing the index of one that matters to you, though.

You may not be able to convince him (5, Interesting)

DickBreath (207180) | more than 2 years ago | (#38877081)

Even with all of the useful suggestions posted here, you may not succeed.

Back in the day, when SCO started their ill fated lawsuit against IBM (but actually against Linux), I had a co worker who I discussed this with. He didn't know much about what was going on, but read the various industry rags and loudmouths, and thus believed that (his words) "SCO has a strong case".

Rewind about three years. I was talking to him about open source and Linux. His reaction about a free high quality OS always came back to "but how do they make their money?". After explaining about open source more, he finally understood it was not about money. I'll never forget his reaction. His words caused my jaw to drop to the floor: "They can't be allowed to do that!"

From that point on, we always were at odds over a lot of fundamental viewpoints. He tended to take the view that anything big business did that was profitable was therefore morally right. Yes, I kid you not.

My point? You may not be able to convince your non techie friend.

Oh, and when you say "unbiased" I think you might have meant "reasonable". There's nothing wrong with being biased because you have a particular viewpoint that you advocate.

Re:You may not be able to convince him (1)

skywiseguy (1347553) | more than 2 years ago | (#38877633)

actually, he complains all the time that the opponents of SOPA tell him the sky is falling when he does not think it is. so unbiased means something that does not resort to hyperbole to make the point. i'm pretty sure he will not be convinced, he actually said he'd like to see something *like* the DMCA but not like the DMCA to replace what has become of SOPA. but at least i want to make him understand the issue, as he does not seem to get it at all right now.

Simply talk about the expansion of it (1)

gurps_npc (621217) | more than 2 years ago | (#38877087)

That is, assume your neighbor had a stolen car. Would that mean the city could take possession of not just the car, but their house AND every car and house on the same block? Because that is what blocking an entire domain is equivalent to.

The surest way to build opposition to copyright... (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#38877141)

Is to enforce it.

For example, today I get to tell a History teacher that he cannot show MLK's 'I have a dream' speech in a lesson because it's under copyright still, and the copyright holder (A relative of King's who inherited the rights) enforces it quite strictly.

Re:The surest way to build opposition to copyright (1)

PhxBlue (562201) | more than 2 years ago | (#38877413)

For example, today I get to tell a History teacher that he cannot show MLK's 'I have a dream' speech in a lesson because it's under copyright still ...

You might want to read Section 110 of the U.S. Copyright Code [] before you actually say something that stupid.

Re:The surest way to build opposition to copyright (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#38877669)

Firstly, I'm British. Secondly, I spent a good part of the morning going through the CDPA 1988 looking for a loophole. There is one that states that showing a work in an educational setting isn't public performance, but it still requires we buy an officially authorised DVD - all the teacher in question had was a file that looks like they recorded it off of a TV program. If they want to show it, they need to buy the DVD... and then they won't show it, because searching through a department to determine where the DVD has been lost and finding a specific place on a DVD with play-and-reverse buttons is just too much hastle.


Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38877165)

That should do it.

For managers, tell them that it will be complete lawsuit nightmare, with everybody being able to sue everybody else out of business over mere accusations, until they go bankrupt from half their employees consisting of lawyers just to fend it off. Also easy to prove with links to the bazillion such cases.

For parents, tell them that their children will go to jail and that they will be sued into oblivion when somebody puts a video of them singing a childrens' song online or anything similarly harmless. Easy to prove with the countless cases where this already happened.

For non-porn-loving women: Women hate everything that disturbs the social harmony and love socializing. So tell them how their loved ones will suffer, with widespread censorship and bullying. Tell them that the content industry is the drug-abusing pimp, and the artists are forced into prostitution, while they take most of the money, and want to come after us if we ever dare to love a artist without paying him. That is the honest truth and should get them.

It's actually quite easy, I think.

For added bonus: Remember: Evil usually triumphs over good, because good abides to a certain standard of rules, while evil does not.
The content mafia doesn't give a fuck about truth, and they use terror words like "pirates", "stealing" and "intellectual property".
So it's way easier to win, if you also loosen some rules with regard to how you treat them (but not in regard to others). To create a counter-weight, you could go full-FOX-level bullshit. But I'm not saying it's right, as it will make you a bit like them in the process.

My take on educating people: (2)

jesseck (942036) | more than 2 years ago | (#38877173)

I think a good analogy for DNS is the phone book: suppose your friend is gay or lesbian, and use the Yellow Book to find services that cater to their needs. However, the local churches petition Yellow Book to stop advertising such establishments. Unless your friend knows where to find a different phone book, they won't be able to find said services. However, the services didn't cease to exist or move.

That is what the law's DNS provisions did- they didn't stop anyone who knew of alternate DNS servers to access.

As for the destructiveness of the other parts of the law- point to the cell phone manufacturer sue-party going on right now, the "John Doe" mass suing pursued by the *IAAs, and Righthaven's actions. If your friend still feels that Righthaven was right to take down content used under the "Fair Use" provisions, then they will never learn (until it's too late). When that happens, I'm sure they'll ask you about alternate DNS and Tor.

Easy enough (1)

stanlyb (1839382) | more than 2 years ago | (#38877177)

SOPA/PIPA bill to freedom of internet is exactly what is NDAA bill to the freedom of people. Explain him how the existing laws are working perfectly fine, and there is no need of a monster like NDAA, and that SOPA/PIPA is all the same, we already have the required legislation to fight piracy.
BONUS: Tell your non-techie that with the NDAA bill, USA becomes USSR. Read my lips: ANYONE could be arrested at ANYTIME, without ANY reason, and put in Siberia....i mean somewhere in USA, for UNKNOWN period of time, and WITHOUT informing his/her relatives if that happened. Again read my lips: GULAG

Good explanation of the issues with SOPA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38877185)

This video seems to do an excellent job of explaining what's wrong with SOPA/PIPA.

Re:Good explanation of the issues with SOPA (1)

kievit (303920) | more than 2 years ago | (#38877533)

Maybe parent was modded down because it was posted anonymously, but I totally agree that Sal Khan gives a very instructive explanation of SOPA/PIPA. I'm a big fan of the Khan Academy. Here is link [] again, this time clickable.

Clay Shirky's TED presentation (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38877195)

Here is a short video with eloquent arguments:

Easy (1)

AlexVye (903941) | more than 2 years ago | (#38877197)

Edit the host file on their PC to have their favorite sites (say youtube, google, etc..) go to nowhere. Then tell them to hit their favorite sites. When they reply "but that's arbitrary, you blocked certain sites arbitrarily" you reply "Exactly.

Mess up his PC's DNS... (1)

FaxeTheCat (1394763) | more than 2 years ago | (#38877229)

Mess up his PCs DNS for some sites. It is really easy.

Find his most frequently used web sites. (I bet is one of them, and you may enjoy including the DNS name for his mail provider as well...
Find the "hosts" file on his PC.
Enter the sites DNS names and let them point to

Now he knows what may happen.

Re:Mess up his PC's DNS... (1)

PhxBlue (562201) | more than 2 years ago | (#38877629)

Better yet, point it to a website that has one of those SOPA takedown notices.

Start by getting informed yourself (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38877245)

The DNS provisions haven't been in SOPA since December. What you are spreading is hysteria and misinformation. Please stop poisoning the democratic process -- it's no different than poisoning the DNS, only one would hope at least you would feel guilty about it.

Khan Academy (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38877275)

There is a great video on Khan Academy about SOPA/PIPA. The video explains what SOPA does and how it gives copyright holders enormous power to bring down "enablers" of piracy (search engines, pay sites, advertisers, DNS, etc). He draws pictures to show how everything is connected and explains the language and repercussions of the law in a way non-techies will easily understand. Highly recommend, anyone who watches the video will leave much more informed in only 11 minutes.

Compare the *AA to the East India Company (4, Interesting)

samjam (256347) | more than 2 years ago | (#38877279)

The *AA and related music publishers are government sponsored pirates.
They raid the public domain, the prevent their own work from being in the public domain.
They sell music to which they do not have the rights.
They rob their own artists with dodgy accounting.
They falsely inflate damages by infringers in order to punish them way beyond worse offenders
They use other peoples materials without rights because they (like everyone else) can't be bothered to follow the laws they sponsor
They issue false take-down notices to material that they do not own (some of which they or their artists use illegally).
They interfere with the politics of other nations in order to further their own interest.
They attempt to make a criminal out of every man woman and child in the world in order to increase revenue.

These are all behaviours observed over the last few years.
Will other slashdot readers please provide citations for each type of behaviour or add new behaviours.

We then ask why elected officials pay more attention to this group of pirates than individuals who have the democratic right to vote.

It's a not-so-wonderful life (1)

apcullen (2504324) | more than 2 years ago | (#38877287)

When I try to explain how bad these laws are, I describe what the internet would be like if these laws had been passed circa 1996. No google. No youtube. Go on from there. Thus, the laws are bad because they make our life suck. For economy-minded types I point out that the music and movie industries would not have hired more people had these laws been on the books, but the laws would have squashed thousands of highly paying tech jobs from being created. Thus, the laws are bad because they are anti-job.

These bills aren't the problem (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 2 years ago | (#38877301)

You need to show him how destructive copyright is... that enforced exclusivity is bad m'kay? Read him some of Jefferson's [] thoughts on the matter.

All scripted (1)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | more than 2 years ago | (#38877311)

I'd like to say there is some hope for educating people like this person you know, but I'm afraid the PR machine is massive, and the rabbit hole goes much deeper than anyone suspects. Think for a minute about the SOPA/PIPA timing and the seizure of MegaUpload. Think it's coincidence? I don't. The only thing I think didn't work out right was the unexpected response to black-out day, which got the SOPA vote delayed. It would have been better marketing if the bill had passed and the arrests used to justify it.

If you read the indictment [] , you'll notice a lot of emails (unencrypted) with damning evidence, including a lot of "users" from places like Northern Virginia, Norfolk Virginia, Alexandria Virginia, etc. And Kim Dotcom was the obvious "ne'er do well" criminal kingpin type, with her castle-like mansion and staff of 12 to run the place. A very movie-like villain in the Scarface drug lord tradition. Except the Great Evil that the heroes at the Justice department were combating is IP Infringement - the great Internet-enabled scourge of our time that is OMG! costing jobs!

I don't believe for a minute that this is anything but a well-orchestrated PR stunt. The actors playing the MegaUpload executive are not going to prison - more likely they'll be given new identities and left in nice little homes in Paraguay to serve out their "sentence". The public is being completely duped with this thing. Sorry, but, please, I'm not buying it.

Re:All scripted (2)

Theaetetus (590071) | more than 2 years ago | (#38877651)

Think for a minute about the SOPA/PIPA timing and the seizure of MegaUpload. Think it's coincidence? I don't.

I don't believe for a minute that this is anything but a well-orchestrated PR stunt.

I am a crackpot

Yes, it's a coincidence... The grand jury indictment was more than a month earlier. Do you really think that the government can coordinate an international seizure operation involving authorities in New Zealand and Virginia in the space of 12 hours?

Easy. (1)

JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) | more than 2 years ago | (#38877319)

Find his favorite porn site, news site, and/or gaming site. Tell him it will vanish wrongly if bills like these pass, especially the porn site.

Eh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38877327)

So you want an unbiased way to get your bias across.

Re:Eh? (1)

kiwimate (458274) | more than 2 years ago | (#38877371)

Yep. Here's the other biased way to describe it.

* The bills are a symptom.
* They only exist because of a cause.
* The cause is illegal downloading.
* So the answer to everyone whining here on Slashdot is to stop downloading illegally and these bills will disappear in a puff of impeccable logic.

Watch how quickly this gets modded down...

Re:Eh? (1)

fibonacci8 (260615) | more than 2 years ago | (#38877487)

The cause is also legal downloading. The bills keep occurring when innovation occurs interrupting the comfortable monopoly on distribution.

Scan his computer (1)

ubrgeek (679399) | more than 2 years ago | (#38877361)

And hand him a list of all of the pirated MP3s he has.

DMCA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38877407)

Their biggest problem now is ISPs are immune from lawsuits. (MegaUpload don't count, they had a fake DMCA take down system, they had 1 copy of each file, but multiple links, when a link to the file was reported, they took down just that link, leaving all the other links and file intact).

ISPs got immunity in exchange for DMCAs ridiculous extreme copyright penalties and DRM protections.

Those insane penalties in turn was the result of MPAA & RIAA lobbying. In other words they created the problem they now face. They wanted insane penalties for copyright violations, but they had to give ISPs immunity to get them in exchange. Here we are today.

So the first thing you need to explain to someone is that MPAA & RIAA are idiots who create ridiculously extreme laws and in the process the backlash hits them.

If they hadn't had the DMCA, we wouldn't be in this mess that we're in today. They'd be balance of probability civil liability for rapidshare, youtube etc. and sites like Hotfiles would be liable and sites like youtube not and everything would be regular business as usual. But there's no way they'll get that now with copyright laws now so extreme that criminal penalties are involved, searchs at borders, censorship... insane extreme laws being suggested to fix laws that were just badly thought through!

bloody simple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38877423)

Do they believe in due process?

You can't because it is not about DNS (1)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 2 years ago | (#38877459)

The debate is not about DNS or filesharing or freedom of speech or right to privacy or US law being enforced beyond its borders.

The basic discussion should be about whether a business model that benefits a few should be protected against the interests of they many AND on whether society needs commercial art.

When cars were first introduced, the horse industry did not just accept it, this led to the extreme that in England a car had to be preceded by a man on foot carrying a red flag. Because cars were so dangerous. Of course horses being insane animals never bolted and never killed anyone (they killed many) and weren't a severe pollution factor (what do horses do to busy roads and this is not one horse on a parade but thousands and thousands of horses all day long).

As a society we can certainly see the benefit of one industry and its business models (if you travel through Amsterdam and can look away from the red light district for just one second, you might notice quite a few old houses with stables build in, places you could park your horse and have it taken care off) being replaced by a new one. Business selling food stuffs were replaced by chemists selling petrol and later of course gas stations.

Would we tolerate it today if Electric cars had to have special measures to be tolerated by the petrol industry... gosh... didn't we have a few stories about how electric cars were to silent and need special laws? Being silent was never a problem for Rolls Royce, why all of a sudden would it apply to electric cars which really aren't all that silent?

So, we had the car anology, now for the content industry. With digital media, it has become possible to share files with no loss in quality and thanks to the internet that file can be shared by anyone. In itself, sharing content is nothing new. When the Dutch traded with Japan, the Japanese copied many a Dutch text book and boosted that countries tech level with all the western advances. This was an extreem example but before the invention of the book press, the only way to get copies of a book was for other people then the author to make copies. Painstakingly copying them by hand one letter at a time. It was the only way to pass on knowledge and before writing was available, passing the stories on by word of mouth was the default... none of this would have been possible with current copyright laws... NOR has the need for this ceased.

The BBC itself has violated encouraged copyright violation when it asked for people who had recorded old TV episodes to give them back for restoration because the BBC had DESTROYED the nation cultural heritage! But the content industry at the time of those recordings was arguing in court that recording programs was a copyright violation. HANG the BBC for using these blatant criminals!

--- That doesn't work does it... but it shows just how silly copyright laws are, the ones we have on the books now are there so content presses (CD's, sheet music, etc) can do so without anyone else being able to do it as well for a specific piece of content. It is NOT about protecting artists who have done just fine for thousands of years without. Current copyright was for a long time used to pay the author a small fee, then have the right to print that work for decades with no balance between what the author was paid and the printing company made from it (copyright started with sheet music, not recorded music).

As with the car, new tech has come along which made a business model based on old tech obsolete. It would have been trivial to force a law that forced car makers to only include small gastanks so that the inns that serviced horses could continue to do business. We didn't because the advance of technology was considered more important then the lively hood of thousands upon thousands of people.

We could have mandated that electricity is delivered by battery only to your house so the coalman would still have a route to run... we didn't.

So why are we so intent on keeping the music industry distribution system alive?

The artists?

And here we come to the most difficult to grasp concepts in this entire discussion.

Say we end copyright. Not reform, not change the implementation, not come to a new arrangement. Simply completely and totally remove it from existence just as it hasn't existed for the majority of human civilization...

The content industry would argue that it would herald a new dark age, the complete collapse of civilization, WW3 and the death of kittens everywhere. And?

Try to grasp this, if EVERY commercial artist (a person who expects to be compensated for his/her work in any form or shape (this includes life performances)) were to be forced to get a different job or starve tomorrow, what would happen? Not just no more Madonna or U2 or whatever but also no more piano music in your bar.

Would this be bad? Not in my opinion, it would be a chance but would it be bad? I don't think art would chance, people would still sing and make music. They just wouldn't be doing it for money but because people like to sing and make music. And public performances would of course not stop at all, people still want to listen to those who are good at their craft and pay for it. Just that no band could claim a song exclusively. You probably know a lot of songs (if you aren't 12 year olds) that are in the public domain and have been sung by countless people, both famous and not. A singer song writer would still create new music for his band and if it become popular, it would be sung by other people who would not pay him a dime making him dependent on his own performance to make a living as a musician. This has worked for THOUSANDS of years.

It is ONLY through technology that it was even possible to change this. The printing press made it possible for a song created by ONE person to be distributed throughout the world without said artists to have gone on one hell of a tour. Technology changed the art industry and copyright was created to make sure that only the one who paid the writer could distribute that creation. This didn't even happen for a long time, it was the craze for sheet music (possibly for pianola's, automated instruments) that created modern copyright. Well modern, 100 years old.

Recorded audio changed things yet again, now you could record a particular performance and play it endlessly. Have you ever heard recorded music in a public place? Well once a person would have been there. The most obvious example was in silent movie theathers were there would be one or more persons playing live music... the record industry KILLED these peoples livelihood. Tech destroying an industry, a business model. Did the content industry, the record industry complain? HELL NO.

The content industry NEVER cared about what tech did to anyone else as long as it benefitted them. The MPAA is worried about the destruction of its industry through the Internet, what about what the film industry did to theathers? How many peoples lost their wages because 1 sleazy movie theather took the audience from dozens of small theathers employing countless people as actors, musicians and stage hands?

Technology changes the world. This is a given, sometimes one person benefits while another looses. That is the way of the world but stopping a tech to protect the few from job losses against the interest of the many, that just never works out. You don't have a man with a red flag walking in front of your car have you? Yes, something maybe lost in the transition to a new era in civilization, but should we protect one industry that had no qualms about destroying others because they can afford to bribe senators?

The movie industry killed vaudeville, let it itself be killed by the Internet. The music industry hurt life performances and the musical instrument industry (once every household could play music because that was the only thing you could do for entertainment), let it die through the Internet. Something new will be born.

The real debate shouldn't be whether you got the right to copy content but on whether we should keep laws and business models around which have been made obsolete by tech.

And if the media lobby thinks this shouldn't be the case then all of them should be forced at pain of death to observe the oldest speed limits ever recorded. After all, the speed limits now are only that high because of advancing tech. And tech changes shouldn't affect the law according to them. Hell, why not copy the blank CD tax and put a tax on content to pay for lost jobs in other industries, maybe have every CD sale put 5% to musical education? Every movie ticket send 10% to the local theather?

Arguing that the content industry needs protection is arguing that cars need to be preceded by man with a red flag. There have been many other examples but the car example just shows how silly this is.

READ the bills together (1)

Theaetetus (590071) | more than 2 years ago | (#38877507)

Without casting any doubt on you, personally, Submitter, most people arguing on either side of the SOPA/PIPA/ACTA debate don't know very much about the bills and have never read them, and are just parroting information from others. You should read them together, and discuss what the different paragraphs mean.

ACTA: [] .
SOPA: [] .
PIPA: [] .

Also discuss the differences in what they are. ACTA is an international trade agreement, like the Berne Convention, the Paris Convention, the TRIPs treaty, the Patent Cooperation Treaty, NAFTA, etc. It's not legislation, but rather an agreement between signatory countries to pass legislation in their own countries. Accordingly, ACTA sets out minimum standards that each country has to meet. Contrary to what some people think, it doesn't need to be ratified by Congress, because it's a non-enabling treaty... instead, Congress has to write legislation implementing it, at which point they get to weigh in on what it means. Until they pass that legislation, ACTA effectively has no teeth in the US.

SOPA and PIPA are house and senate bills, respectively. They implement many of the provisions of ACTA, but they differ in important ways. Reading them side by side is probably a good thing. Note, however, that even if both were passed, a joint committee would then figure out a compromise position, so neither one is what a final statute would look like.

Simple demonstration (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38877575)

Wait till he leaves for work, then change all the locks on his house. When he comes home, tell him he can't come in unless he can *prove* he wasn't actually doing anything illegal in there.

Do this, (1)

wbr1 (2538558) | more than 2 years ago | (#38877635)

Set up a dns server or proxy that blocks halv of whar he does and repale the sitea with takedown notices. Route him through it secretly and see how he responds. (on mobile and do not feel lile scrolling, so.sorry if thia has been said)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?