Timeline for How does SOPA threaten Stack Overflow / Stack Exchange?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 30, 2011 at 14:29 | comment | added | ChrisLively | @Craig: finish the section: "is a foreign infringing site or is an internet site dedicated to theft of U.S. property;" either way, that section applies to immunity from retaliatory lawsuits when a site is taken down. The definition for Foreign Internet Sites is pretty clear. | |
| Nov 30, 2011 at 3:25 | comment | added | Craig | @Chris You need to read the rest of the bill. Only section 102 is limited to foreign sites. The rest of the bill applies to both foreign and domestic sites. e.g. Section 104(1) "is a foreign infringing site or is an Internet site" The definition of Internet site is not limited to foreign sites. | |
| Nov 30, 2011 at 0:05 | comment | added | ChrisLively | @K.BrianKelley: Do me a favor. Go read the bill. Then have your browser highlight the word "foreign" and read it again. SO is not affected.. at all. | |
| Nov 30, 2011 at 0:03 | comment | added | K. Brian Kelley | @Chris: Safe harbor is necessary because, depending on jurisdiction, court orders can be rather easy to obtain. And that's where things get really, really dicey. Look at the Chanel case and how they are able to seize domains without prior contestation. That's on Ars Technica now. So a site like SO could be nuked without any real hard proof. | |
| Nov 30, 2011 at 0:01 | comment | added | ChrisLively | @Orclev: and, the bleeding obvious, Stack Overflow is a "domestic" site by the bills definition and not part of the target. | |
| Nov 29, 2011 at 23:45 | comment | added | ChrisLively | @Orclev: The stack exchange sites by their very nature provide enforcement. There is a rather large community here that actively polices the content of this site, so that's a non-starter. Regardless, again, it takes the Attorney General and/or a court order to take a site down, safe harbor isn't exactly necessary. | |
| Nov 29, 2011 at 21:15 | comment | added | Orclev | To expand on my previous comment, the OP is somewhat misleading in that the real danger to SO is not directly in being shut down (although it could be indirectly shut down by SOPA), but in being forced to decide between draconian levels of censorship on user posts that would cripple the site, or risking (the near certainty) of being found guilty on multiple counts of copyright infringement. If SO decides to host outside the US in order to avoid being sued for copyright infringement that's when the SOPA blacklisting comes into play and would effectively de-list SO from the internet. | |
| Nov 29, 2011 at 20:37 | comment | added | Orclev | @Chris It's my understanding that unlike DMCA, SOPA has no safe harbor clause, so it requires pro-active enforcement on the part of the hosting site in order to not be found guilty of copyright infringement on user posted content. By the time things proceed to the point of court orders being issued a site is already considered to be infringing and subject to punitive damages. | |
| Nov 29, 2011 at 20:09 | comment | added | ChrisLively | This is misleading. It should say "Stack Overflow can be shut down for IGNORING THE DOJ AND/OR COURT ORDERS with regards to copyrighted material." In other words, it is meaningless in terms of this site. | |
| Nov 29, 2011 at 19:37 | comment | added | shmeeps | My mistake then. Ignore my previous comment, thanks for the correction. | |
| Nov 29, 2011 at 19:30 | comment | added | Tinister | @shmeeps SOPA covers blocking direct IP access | |
| Nov 29, 2011 at 18:46 | comment | added | shmeeps | I think "blocked" is more suitable then shut down. SO would still exist, but no one in the US would be able to reach it via US based DNS, but it could still be reached through foreign DNS or a direct IP address. While for the average user, who probably doesn't know the IP of SO, or even how to connect through it, it will be "shut down" in essence, the site is only blocked. I may have mis-read the bill, but I don't believe sites can be shut down, but access can be removed. Technical nitpicking. | |
| Nov 29, 2011 at 16:18 | comment | added | Kevin Vermeer | While Spolsky's answer is more detailed, this one can be explained in an elevator ride. Short, simple, and to the point - I could even see something much like this being an alternative system message to the current one, which isn't very specific and instead just uses "threaten" and "shut down" in a manner than could invoke doubt. | |
| Nov 29, 2011 at 16:00 | history | edited | Michael Mrozek | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 32 characters in body
|
| Nov 29, 2011 at 15:59 | history | answered | BЈовић | CC BY-SA 3.0 |