[thebigshane]

Okay I'm not going to attempt to support/defend SOPA but I have some serious questions:

Why do all of these SOPA articles on HN fail to mention that this bill specifically targets "foreign" sites?

They all mention a possible threat against youtube, facebook etc, but since these are "domestic" sites aren't they excluded?

Is there a particular definition or qualification in the bill that I missed that would widen the scope to include these existing sites?

(I do acknowledge that a potential youtube/facebook competitor overseas IS affected by SOPA, so again, I'm not saying SOPA is good, as it should be obvious it isn't. But lets bash it based on facts not conjecture or, worse, emotion)

[zacharypinter]

As I understand it, there are at least 3 different ways SOPA can affect a person/company negatively:

1. If your site gets targeted to be blocked.

2. If you run an ISP and you have to manage the infrastructure to block websites.

3. If you develop a program that could be used to route around DNS blocks, which SOPA would make illegal.

So, while targeting the bill at foreign sites lessens its impact for #1, which is still bad, it does nothing to lessen the impact of #2 and #3.

[thebigshane]

Both #2 and #3 are addressed in the bill as well. http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/HR%203261%20Managers...

For #2 see: No Duty to Monitor, No Technology Mandates and No Impact on Security or Integrity in Section 2 Savings and Severability Clauses, and then Service Providers in Section 102. My paraphrasing: Service Provider is not required to actively monitor, design their service to "forestall or prevent acts that would actually or potentially create a cause of action".

For #3 see: Enforcement of Orders in Section 102. My paraphrasing: Attorney General may bring an action for "injunctive relief" against any product or service that is designed or marketed for the purpose of enabling a domain name affected by this act. I think MAFIAAfire and DeSOPA both apply here but a general DNS cacher/sharer may not apply since they could be said to have different purposes than just bypassing SOPA/ICE/ProtectIP.

So, yeah, some people can be affected negatively, but I think they have put in some effort to address the issues you bring up while still being able to carry out their mission of targeting foreign sites dedicated to infringing and profiting off of copyrighted works.

I am not a lawyer, this is only my best attempt of explaining the bill which I have read now a few times.

[dangrossman]

4. If you're one of tens of thousands of merchant account providers, payment processors and advertising networks that will have to manage the infrastructure to suspend or terminate customers whose website is accused of primarily enabling copyright infringement.

Plus, all these companies are going to end up involved in lawsuits with one or more clients over the constitutionality of being forced to breach contracts without any due process.

[thebigshane]

Perhaps I shouldn't have said that I won't attempt to defend SOPA. I am obviously defending certain parts of it. However, I still don't support it, in fact, I still hate the ambiguity of terms, the way it is argued in congress, and how this may be the canary before other "real" internet censorship bills get introduced.

And since this is about the dozenth SOPA article posted in the last couple weeks, and with a certainly flamebait title, I just wanted to introduce some other viewpoints and, hopefully, some rationality to the otherwise emotional discussion.

[bgentry]

Exactly how would you define a "foreign site", especially when the countries of origin for the domain name and servers could be different? What about sites with servers in multiple countries?

[thebigshane]

I would let SOPA define it, but since their definitions are long and stuck in a PDF, I'll paraphrase from the source: http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/HR%203261%20Managers...

   A site that either has a domain name registered outside 
   of the judicial district of the US, OR whose IP address 
   is located outside of the judicial district of the US.

So I think both of your examples could be within reach of SOPA. But then I think both youtube and facebook are out of reach of SOPA (instead they fall under existing law).